Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Yes, I believe the entire provision should apply only to engines smaller than 50 horsepower and not engines larger than 50 horsepower. So, in summary, the intent of this provision is to apply to adoption or enforcement of standards or other requirements relating to the control of emissions from new nonroad spark-ignition engines smaller than 50 horsepower.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. On behalf of the Republican leadership, I object.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after I finish my remarks, the Senator from Rhode Island be recognized.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have come to speak about the Omnibus appropriations bill. I say to my good friend from North Dakota, sometimes it is frustrating. We spent 8 years with an administration of his party, and there were many times we had to change appropriations bills. We had a very frequent presence from the Office of Management and Budget, and in order to get bills signed, we had to accede to Presidential requests. In this bill, obviously, there are some very important provisions. When we are talking about country-of-origin labeling, the concern that comes to many of us in livestock-producing States, cattle producers and hog producers, if you are a small independent operator and you don't have a totally integrated operation, you have a very difficult time getting a total life history of every animal you might want to feed out and sell. The ability of a large integrated operation which goes from cow calf to feeding, finishing and slaughtering, they are in a great position to live with the country-of-origin labeling. There are some real problems, which is why we asked for a delay in the implementation of the country- of-origin labeling. There had been a new proposal for an animal identification system which would make that prospect possible. In the absence of that, many of the individual small cattle ranchers and hog producers in my State think it would be impossible for them to sell their animals. There are some conflicting needs. Those had to be resolved and, like any measure, an Omnibus appropriations bill has provisions in it that some people don't like. Certainly, in almost every appropriations bill on which I work, there are provisions I don't like. But we have to get it passed by both Houses. We have to get it signed by the President. I am here today to urge that, No. 1, we move quickly to adopt the Omnibus appropriations bill and that we get on and work on a bipartisan basis without delays, without having to invoke cloture to pass appropriations bills for the coming year. With respect to the Omnibus appropriations bill, I wish to call the attention of my colleagues to some very important provisions. There are problems that are happening every day because we were not able to pass the Omnibus appropriations bill in December. We worked on a bipartisan basis. The distinguished ranking member of the VA-HUD Subcommittee, Senator Mikulski of Maryland, and I put together what is a very difficult bill, but we think it is a very important bill. Probably the most significant part of it is for medical care. The Omnibus appropriations bill provides $28.3 billion in funds, including third-party insurance collections. This amount is $3.1 billion over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and represents a 12.3 percent increase over the previous year's enacted level, the one that will have to stay in effect if we continue to work under a continuing resolution. At this point, our problem is we either pass this bill or go back to a continuing resolution. The figure of $3.1 billion less for the current year means great hardship, great delay for our VA health care, among other things. Make no mistake, these funds are urgently and desperately needed by veterans, especially for those who return from Iraq and the global war on terrorism. If my colleagues visit, as I have, VA facilities, the Washington VA, and the VA facilities in my home State, anyplace they go they will find there is a tremendous delay in the ability to care for and take on veterans who qualify under the greatly expanded eligibility scope the Congress has mandated on VA. There is a great delay in taking care of many of these people. According to a VA analysis, there are 15,813 service members who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom who have been separated from military duty as of September 22 of last year. Among these service members, almost 2,000, or 12.5 percent, have sought VA health care during 2003. Every day we hear unfortunate and sad news of American soldiers killed in Iraq. As illustrated by the VA analysis and scores of news reports, there are thousands of service members who were fortunate to live but were wounded in combat. As reported last October 1 by USA Today: At least seven times as many men and women have been wounded in battle as those killed in battle. As these wounded service members are discharged from the military and confront new and challenging hardships in piecing together a new life, most of them will depend upon the VA to meet their needs. I personally met some of these service members when I visited Walter Reed Hospital last month. I visited the VA facilities. I visited service members, such as Phillip Ramsey from Kansas City, MO, who was badly wounded in Iraq and will ultimately require extensive, long-term care from the VA system as well. Further, we know that the demand for VA medical care is not going to lessen. We have already seen the VA medical care system being overwhelmed by the staggering increase in demand for its medical services. Since 1996, VA has seen a 54-percent increase, or 2 million patients more, in total users of the medical care system. Further, the VA projects that its enrollments will grow by another 2 million patients from a current level of 7 million to 9 million patients in 2009. Getting the funds that we have approved in the Senate, approved in the conference committee, approved on the floor, and signed by the President is absolutely essential. In addition, construction projects for new medical facilities and improvements to existing facilities will not go forward without this Omnibus bill passing. Under a year-long continuing resolution, the VA would not be able to begin funding construction for new facilities in Las Vegas and Orlando. Further, funding for the development of 48 high- priority, new, community-based outpatient clinics, and a number of new nursing homes will be curtailed. In the years I have worked with the VA in my current position, providing community-based outpatient clinics is the most effective, humane, and efficient way of delivering service to VA-qualified veterans who would otherwise have to travel perhaps as much as hundreds of miles to get primary and routine care. In another area, for 2003, pharmacy costs rose over 11 percent, and the VA is continuing to see increasing demands for prescriptions each month. The continued rising demand for prescriptions is stripping funds from other priority areas as VA continues to operate under last year's funding level. Furthermore, the VA provides a high priority to the highest quality of life long-term care for each of its elderly veterans. The VA planned to expand its program by over 20 percent this year, but the VA will not be able to expand its long-term care services under a continuing resolution funding authority. This, in my view, is not the way we should treat the men and women in uniform who have served America. The VA has made significant strides in improving claims benefits processing, but the VA's efforts would again be curtailed under a continuing resolution. The VA is currently on track to reach their goal of no longer than 100 days to process these claims, down from 233 days, which it was previously. They are trying to get there by the end of 2004. However, with a continuing resolution level at the 2003 level, the current year, the Veterans Benefits Administration would have to cut 500 full-time employees. Such a reduction would be catastrophic to the timeliness of claims processing and the expeditious delivery of benefits such as pensions to the needy, education benefits, and home loans. At a continuing resolution for 2003 funding level, the VA cemetery services would be critically impacted and would result in delays in awarding shrine commitment contracts, awarding grants for State veterans cemeteries, and a reduced level of staffing that would negatively impact cemetery maintenance. America's veterans rely on the VA to provide the services they need and have earned. Now is not the time to reduce funding levels, and that is one reason I urge my colleagues to approve this Omnibus bill. In HUD, Housing and Urban Development, under a continuing resolution, the Section 8 Voucher Program for the needy who get housing through a voucher provided by the Federal Government would be $2.1 billion short. That would result in tens of thousands of low-income families without rental subsidy assistance and potentially displace them. Certainly, that is not something we want to see done. That is another reason we have to pass the Omnibus bill. For the Federal Housing Administration single family and multifamily insurance fund programs, the continuing resolution's limitations for the mutual mortgage insurance and general insurance/special risk insurance programs will be hit well before the end of the fiscal year. That would result in a suspension of new mortgage activities for a wide variety of home ownership and multifamily housing programs. Moving on to NASA, our space program, under a year-long continuing resolution space science activities would be reduced by approximately $425 million from the amount included in the 2004 Omnibus appropriations conference report on the VA/HUD and independent agencies. Space science would be forced to accommodate the reduction by cutting missions that are currently in the pre-development phase, both technology and advanced concepts, which would likely result in delays to missions on origins, solar space exploration, and Sun-Earth connections. NASA is also relying on the 2004 omnibus level for the space shuttle program in order to accommodate return to flight requirements. If forced to operate under a full-year CR, the ability of the space shuttle to accommodate these return to flight requirements would be reduced by nearly $60 million. Finally, the Corporation for National Community Service would be forced to limit grant awards to AmeriCorps programs throughout the country since the CR does not provide adequate funding to reach the President's goal of 75,000 volunteers. Under a year-long CR, the corporation would only be able to support between 45,000 and 47,000 members, about 40 percent less than provided under the Omnibus appropriations bill. We went through a period of problems that have occurred in the Corporation for National and Community Service. Senator Mikulski and I worked to help them straighten out the problems. On a bipartisan basis, they have had strong support for getting back to the great work of the many volunteer programs, including AmeriCorps. Without this funding, there would be a drastic setback and we would find that the level of activity would be significantly reduced. These are just some of the reasons, from the perspective of the VA/ HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee bill, which is included in the Omnibus bill, why I hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle will agree we need to get on with this bill and go to work on the current year's business. We have far too little time to deal with all of the things we must deal with, and I hope we could get on with the job.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 21, 2003, at 9 a.m., to hold a hearing on North Korea.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, earlier today I spoke briefly about the need to get our appropriations bills, many of which are now included in the so-called omnibus appropriations measure--some of us think it is an ``ominous'' appropriations measure--passed prior to the end of calendar year 2003. Among the things I pointed out were some very important measures. This body passed something called the Help America Vote Act, which I think focused attention on two very important problems. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle wanted to make sure we had up-to-date voting machines to make sure everyone who was entitled to vote could vote to remove barriers to voting. We supported that. We also got support for something I thought was very important as well, and that was to stop the rampant fraud that has come back as a result of postcard registration. I have the honor of representing an area that has probably the dubious distinction of being one of the vote fraud centers perhaps in the universe. The city of St. Louis, as I have said many times before, is famous for voting rolls clogged with people registered one, two, three, even four times; vacant lots with small cities worth of registered voters; and even my favorite dog, Ritzy Meckler, a 13-year- old Springer Spaniel who was registered there. We have had some great theological experiences. For the last general election, a very prominent and outstanding alderman of the city of St. Louis registered to vote on the 10th anniversary of his death. It is a wonderful theological statement. It does not do much for me as a political scientist, but he registered by postcard. After the 2000 election, when we found tremendous vote fraud problems in St. Louis, they had a mayoral election scheduled for the spring of 2001. The last day of registration, 3,000 postcards showed up to register voters for that election. It did not take long for observant election officials to note that all of those cards appeared to be in the handwriting of one or two people. They started checking and they found that, lo and behold, there were a lot of phony people registered. Terribly, the deceased mother of the prosecuting attorney of the city of St. Louis was registered to vote. This brought about some action. Several of the people involved in that little process came together and decided to destroy the records. Since that time, I have read in the paper that the prosecuting attorney in St. Louis has filed significant criminal indictments for those people. However, I am proud to say that the St. Louis City election board is using new laws passed in the State of Missouri to tighten up on these postcard registrations. Prior to the Help America Vote Act, you couldn't even check on people who registered by mail. The process for getting voters off the list, if they are improperly registered, was byzantine, and took years to do. But under the Federal standards, there are still areas where these nonexistent or duplication voter registrations can be made by mail. We provided new powers and new responsibilities for local election officials in the Help America Vote Act. We promised to fund them. So during the process of debate on the appropriations bills, Senator Dodd of Connecticut, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, the Chair, and the ranking member of the Rules Committee, when this passed, came to the floor and I supported them. We got over $1 billion to fund the Help America Vote Act. That languishes in the omnibus appropriations bill. That money is necessary to support local efforts to carry out the mandates under the Help America Vote Act. We all thought that once we passed that law we were going to ensure honest elections in 2004, elections where everybody entitled to vote could vote. The problem is, if we don't get around to passing the funding for the Help America Vote Act until we come back next year, the process drags on and on and we are probably into March before the money goes out--which is too late to make many of the changes and to build the infrastructure and to buy the equipment that is needed to carry out the requirements of the Help America Vote Act. I have talked with other Senators about the many important measures that are included in that Omnibus Appropriations Act. But I want to call the attention of my colleagues to some further information that I have developed about the Veterans Affairs budget. Senator Mikulski and I fought long and hard to get the funding that we needed to try to catch up to the backlog in the VA. People with service-related injuries, permanent disabilities, low-income people, homeless people, are being denied, for months, the ability to get in to see a doctor because so many new enrollees have come into the system. This body expanded the eligibility. We expanded the eligibility, but the money has not kept up. So we are trying to play catchup, and there is an additional $2.9 billion above this year's funding level for the VA that cannot begin until the bill is signed. We are already a couple of months into the fiscal year 2004. We would be 6 or 7 months in before we could get funding if we wait until next year. My staff tells me there are a number of other things that will happen. Specifically, noninstitutional long-term care cannot be increased. The VA has placed a high priority, providing a high quality of life, long-term care for each veteran. The VA planned to expand the program by over 20 percent this year because of the demand. The VA, without these funds, will not be able to expand the long-term care services under the fiscal year 2003 funding authority. Second, pharmacy costs will continue eating the budget. For fiscal year 2003, pharmacy costs rose over 11 percent and the VA is incurring increasing demands for prescriptions each month. The continuing rise in demand for prescriptions is stripping funds from other priority areas as VA continues to operate under last year's funding levels. Third, new community-based outpatient clinics will be curtailed. The VA has 48 high-priority community-based outpatient clinics ready to go that can't move forward because they don't have the funds under the continuing resolution. Finally and most important, and something I hope will be significant to each one of us here, the waiting lists will continue to lengthen. Continued operations under a continuing resolution will force VA to curtail hiring of new physicians and nurses. The VA experiences about a 1-percent normal attrition rate of physicians per month. By January, VA's waiting list will rise by over 10,000 from the projected level. VA patients, who should be getting our top priority attention, are going to find the waiting list longer. That is why I renew my appeal to the leaders on both sides to deal with the omnibus appropriations, to come to some agreement, either to take this on UC, or take it by voice vote, with the distinguished chairman and ranking member on our side and the other side to come to closure on it, or, if need be, bring us back in session. The House is going to come back into session on December 8, I understand, and vote on the bill. We have an obligation to come in-- either if there is a unanimous consent agreement granted to do it by voice vote or if there is not--and do what we are paid to do and that is to vote up or down and pass the appropriations that are so essential for many areas where continuing resolution funding will be inadequate. I urge the leadership to work on this. We need it in many areas. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I commend our leader, Senator Frist, as well as Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus, and Senator Breaux, for the tremendous work in passing this very difficult bill. This is a tremendous milestone. It is great news for the seniors of our Nation. I also ask and plead with the leadership and the Members to realize that we have not yet finished work on the vitally important appropriations bills. It is extremely important we get these bills passed this year prior to the start of 2004, because there is so much in these bills that must be passed now. The Appropriations Committees, under the leadership of Chairman Stevens and Senator Byrd, have worked long and hard to produce these bills. Senator Mikulski and I fought to get an increase in veterans health of $2.9 billion. We did that because of the pressing need for our veterans. Our high-priority veterans are waiting sometimes 6 months just to get an appointment. We need that money in the VA system now, not sometime next year. We are also seeing more and more veterans coming back from the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq with serious injuries, long-term injuries, that are going to require veterans health care. We have to come to some agreement to get these bills passed this year, not sometime next year, not January or February or March. We cannot afford to miss a half a year. In addition to that, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Connecticut put in the over $1 billion needed for the Help America Vote Act.

Mr. BOND. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. BOND. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky makes a very valid point. The time is now to get that money into the voting system in every State. We cannot delay any longer. Every week, every month we delay, means less likelihood that we will make the changes that were promised. This body overwhelmingly adopted the Help America Vote Act which, as Senator McConnell has said, will make it easier to vote and tougher to cheat. This is a commitment we made to the people of America that we would provide these reforms and we would fund them. If this money has to wait until the approval of these appropriations bills sometime in February and getting the money out in March or April, we are not going to get it done in time. They are not going to be able to implement these vitally important reforms in election. I know many people want to get their voting machines improved. Frankly, I want to see the end of dogs and dead people voting. They are still trying that in St. Louis. There was a nice 180-count indictment issued by the prosecuting attorney in the city of St. Louis, the circuit attorney. That problem needs to stop and the only way we can get it to stop is by funding the Help America Vote Act. There are many other good arguments, but I urge the leaders to come together to work on this matter. If we could do it by unanimous consent, that would be the best, but if we have to come back the second week in December, we have an obligation to the people of Missouri to do our job. I plead with the leadership to come to some agreement so we can finish these bills. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I recognize the St. Louis radio community for joining together to pioneer the 1st Annual March of Dimes Radio Broadcasters For Babies Event at the Saint Louis Galleria on November 8, 2003. This was the first event of its kind nationwide. Together, Clear Channel Radio, Emmis Broadcasting, Bonneville St. Louis Radio Group, KTRS The Big 550, 1380 THE TEAM, Q95.5 Radio One, Classic 99 and Infinity Radio raised almost $300,000 to support research and programs to save babies from premature birth, the leading cause of birth defects and infant mortality. One out of every eight babies in the U.S. is born prematurely, some so tiny they can't even cry. In nearly half of these cases, no one knows why. With their 5 year, $75 million Prematurity Campaign--no one is working harder than the March of Dimes to find out why babies are born too soon. I commend the St. Louis radio community for their support of the March of Dimes. With their help we will find the causes of premature birth and gain more knowledge to save more babies.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I rise to honor two outstanding Missourians, Daniel and Jo Ann Platt. The occasion is a special one, as they celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. Only a year after Jo Ann, a native of Indiana, and Dan, a New Yorker, were married on December 5, 1953, they came to the Midwest from Manhattan, where Dan--an anesthesiologist--had been asked to become chief of the Anesthesia Department at Knickerbocker Hospital and the New York Eye and Ear Infirmary. Instead, Dan practiced at Alton Memorial Hospital, a place where the Platts believed that he could engage in a personal, patient-centered style of medicine that was impossible in a larger, more urban hospital setting. And there, he opened the first recovery room in the St. Louis metropolitan area, and established one of the first coronary care units and intensive care units in the St. Louis area, along with Barnes Hospital. Upon Dan's retirement in 2002, Alton Memorial Hospital dedicated its surgical and emergency building in his name, to commemorate his 48 years of service to the community, complete with a bust and a plaque paying tribute to Dan as ``the consummate physician.'' As Dan worked long hours at the hospital, Jo Ann was busy, as well. Over the years, she has served the community in many capacities, including as a member of the board of trustees of St. Louis Country Day School, on the vestry of The Church of Saint Michael and Saint George, on the board of governors of the Saint Louis Woman's Club, on the board of the St. Louis Charitable Foundation, and as a board member for both the Jennie D. Hayner Library Association and the Alton Museum of History. Yet the bulk of Jo Ann's time was spent in supporting Dan's practice of medicine--which she considered a ministry--and being a devoted and fun-loving mother to their three children: Drew, now a commercial realtor and developer in Evansville, IN; Brett, who runs his own currency hedge fund in London, England, and recently became engaged to Mariela Ferro; and Carol, an attorney, political analyst and commentator, who lives in San Marino, CA, with her husband Jack Liebau, a portfolio manager who recently opened his own investment management firm. Carol, after surviving Harvard Law School as an overt Republican, worked faithfully on my staff in Washington for 2 years before realizing that her colleagues simply could not listen fast enough. All three children remember lives filled with the love, support and encouragement of their parents--and many, many good times. Truly, Dan and Jo Ann's life together has been full of accomplishments and blessings--most notably, the heartfelt love and respect of their children and children-in-law. We wish them every happiness in the years to come, together with our warmest congratulations and best wishes.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may go out of order to speak for 5 minutes prior to Senator Hatch, and then Senator Hatch may be recognized.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am most grateful to my colleagues. I have been here on the floor for 3 scintillating hours, and I have other commitments that I have to make. Early this morning the House passed historic bipartisan legislation to improve and strengthen the Medicare program and give all seniors access to prescription drug coverage. Seniors will finally receive the prescription drug coverage they need and the health care security they deserve. This Medicare conference report is a compromise in the truest sense of the word. It is not perfect--some on the far left don't like it and some on the far right don't like it either. But I will tell you who does like it: The AARP--this agreement has been endorsed by the leading voice for older Americans--representing 35 million members nationwide and 743,000 members in my home State of Missouri. As well as the hospitals, doctors, other health care providers and employers. Why do these groups support this bill? Because in AARP's own words, ``This is about getting vital help to people that need it most.'' Before I talk about some of the strengths on this bill I wanted to take this opportunity to address some of the criticism from my friends on the other side of the aisle. I have heard some Members say that this bill ``keeps drug prices high.'' That is untrue. Seniors will realize significant savings off their current drug bills under this bill. In 2004-2005, senior citizens will receive a Prescription Drug Discount Card that the Department of Health & Human Services--HHS--estimates will cut drug costs by up to 25 percent. In 2006, the prescription drug benefit is added to Medicare that HHS estimates will help seniors currently without coverage save up to half off what they're paying today. For the typical senior who spends $1,285 a year on prescription drugs, more than $640 they get to keep in their pocket translates into significant savings. Lastly, the bipartisan Medicare plan also ensures generic drugs, less expensive than brand-name pharmaceuticals, are moved to market much faster to help hold down costs. I have heard some members say that this bill will ``cause two to three million retirees to lose drug coverage.'' This bill contains $88 billion worth of employer incentives to help protect retirees' private coverage. This bill will actually strengthen the safety net for seniors by providing financial incentives for employers to continue offering prescription drug coverage for their retirees. This marks the first time that Medicare will provide a federal subsidy of 28 percent of beneficiaries' drug costs between $250 to $5,000--up to $1,330 per beneficiary. This subsidy is excluded from taxation, providing another incentive for employers to offer coverage. Lastly, qualified retiree plans have maximum flexibility on plan design, formularies and networks, and allows employers to wrap-around Medicare coverage options. That is why the AARP and major employer groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers, Employers' Coalition on Medicare, Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable, endorse the bipartisan Medicare plan. Some Members have said this bill is ``bad for seniors'' and cited a recent Consumers Union report. Truth is this Medicare bill provides help to the two groups that need it most--low income seniors, and seniors with high drug costs. Even Consumers Union acknowledges that low-income seniors ``will be eligible for substantial subsidies for their prescription drugs.'' Consumers Union also acknowledges that seniors with catastrophic drug expenditures get ``measurable relief'' under the bill, which will cover 95 percent of a senior's drug costs over $3,600. In other words, the Medicare bill provides help to the two groups that need it most--low income seniors, and seniors with high drug costs. And finally some have claimed that this Medicare bill will destroys Medicare as we know it and privatize the whole program. That is one of my personal favorites. Bottom line is the AARP would never endorse a bill that privatizes or in any way destroys the Medicare program period. I will support this bill because it is the first major upgrade to Medicare in 38 years, providing help to the two groups that need it most--low income seniors, and seniors with high drug costs. For nearly four decades, Medicare has provided peace of mind and health care security for millions of seniors. Yet, increasingly this cherished program is no longer meeting the security needs of our seniors. Medicine has advanced exponentially since 1965, but the Medicare Program has not kept pace. When Medicare was launched 38 years ago, modern medicine meant surgery and hospitalization--and that is what Medicare covers. Today, doctors routinely treat their patients with prescription drugs, preventive care and groundbreaking medical devices--but Medicare has not kept pace with these changes. For example, today Medicare covers only about half of the typical seniors' health care costs. Medicare lacks good preventive coverage, wellness care, and chronic disease management. It doesn't even cover the costs of an annual physical. It does not protect against large, catastrophic health costs should serious illness strike. And we all know that it does not cover outpatient prescription drugs. Additionally, the program faces serious financial and demographic pressures in the coming years. Between now and 2030 the number of seniors will nearly double from 40 million to 77 million. The program's costs will more than double to nearly $450 billion annually, even before we add prescription drug coverage or improve other benefits. And the number of taxpayers paying into the system to finance health coverage for seniors will drop from 4 today to 2.4 by 2030. This underscores the need to act and the need to act responsibly. We need to improve the program for today's seniors but we also need to put in place a more stable structure that will provide health care security for generations to come. My goal is and has always been to give seniors the best, most innovative care. This will require a strong, up-to-date Medicare system that relies on innovation and competition, not bureaucratic rules, price controls and regulation. The bill before us takes a bold new step and is an important achievement in the effort to strengthen and improve Medicare and provide meaningful prescription drug benefits to seniors. This bill offers beneficiaries a meaningful and reliable drug benefit through the private sector, with reasonable and fair cost-sharing. Beneficiaries will have the ability to receive the drugs of their choice without government interference and with better coverage options. Most importantly, it will provide prescription drug coverage at little costs to those who need it most--people with low incomes. It will provide substantial relief to those with very high drug costs and relief to millions more. In a country as prosperous as ours, we can no longer tolerate situations where seniors have to split their pills in half or cannot fill necessary prescriptions because they can't afford the vital drugs they need. This bill ensures access to drug benefits for beneficiaries who live in rural areas. Reliable coverage will be available everywhere in Missouri--wherever there is Medicare coverage, there will be prescription drug coverage. As we work to implement this new Medicare benefit, this bill will provide immediate prescription drug assistance for beneficiaries through a temporary drug discount card available to seniors 6 months after the bill is signed into law. This discount card is expected to yield a savings of between 10 and 25 percent. Some of our most vulnerable seniors would receive an additional $600 subsidy annually to assist with the purchase of prescription drugs. This drug card would be available until the Medicare prescription drug benefit is fully implemented in 2006. Adding vital prescription drug coverage is not the only thing that we are doing to improve Medicare coverage for seniors. Medical experts long ago learned that preventive care extends and improves quality of life. The bill before us today adds vital preventive care, wellness services, and chronic care management. This long overdue step will keep seniors healthy and will save money and most importantly save lives. This bill also includes $25 billion in new assistance to ensure patient access to hospitals, doctors and other health care providers, especially in rural areas. The Medicare bill corrects existing rural inequities by infusing billions of dollars over the next decade into rural and small towns as well as small hospitals everywhere. Admittedly I remain concerned about the magnitude of the reductions in payments for cancer care included in the bill. I hope to work with the Senate leadership as well as Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus moving forward to ensure that these cuts do not threaten access to cancer care for patients in Missouri and across the country. We must bring Medicare into the 21st century: add a prescription drug benefit, expand coverage, improve services, and give seniors more control over the health care they receive. This week we are poised to make historic changes with bipartisan support to improve the Medicare Program, to strengthen it for seniors and to preserve and protect it for future generations. I want to say why I am in favor of this Medicare conference report. I think that Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, in a bipartisan coalition, came up with a great compromise. Nobody should be surprised that it makes enemies left and right. That is what a compromise or a moderate proposal does. I will tell you one group that is for it. That is the AARP, with 35 million members nationwide. There are 743,000 seniors in my State who have been deeply involved in the preparations of this legislation. They say it is a good deal because it is about getting the vital help to people who need it most. I was a little amused hearing some of the folks on the other side of the aisle condemning AARP. Generally, AARP may side with the Democrats, but in this instance we have worked with them and on a bipartisan basis. It isn't just Republicans. Now that they endorse a bipartisan compromise, rather than going with the Democrats, they condemn them. Let me just talk about a few of the misconceptions I have heard in the last 3\1/2\ hours: Drug prices will be high. There will be a senior citizen discount card with a 15 to 25 percent reduction; $600 for low- income seniors the next couple of years. HHS estimates in 2006 the typical senior will save approximately half of what he is paying today. This plan also ensures the less expensive generic drugs will get the market faster, helping to hold down the cost. Some have said this is bad for seniors. The truth is that the Consumers Union acknowledges it will help the two most needy groups-- the low-income seniors and those seniors with high drug costs. These are the people who really need the help. Finally, this is the favorite charge: Some have said this is going to destroy Medicare; that it is going to privatize it. That is really one of my personal favorites. I think the Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, did a wonderful job of pointing out some of the demagoguery we hear when people talk about destroying Medicare. There are problems in Medicare with the way it is administered. Senator Bennett outlined quite a few of those. We can tell you about a lot of problems. I have staff people who work all the time helping people sort through Medicare. To say that the Republicans and the Bush administration want to destroy it is a big, fat, flat lie. No matter how many times you repeat it, it is not true. The whole purpose of this is to assure that there is a reliable drug benefit and health care benefit for seniors now and in the future. We are asking the next generation to pick up the ball for a $400 billion, 10-year plan that is going to continue to grow, and we owe them the solid viable Medicare program that is still in operation when they reach Medicare-eligible age. One of the problems that Senator Collins of Maine discussed which she and I have been fighting with the former Health Care Financing Administration, HCFA, is they were ordered to save some money in Medicare. They squeezed it down so tightly that instead of saving $16 billion a year, they cut the cost by $64 billion a year, and they threw one-third of the home health care agencies out of business in Missouri. Seniors could not get the home health care they needed because of HCFA. Somebody said the costs are not going up. The problem with Medicare is fewer and fewer doctors and hospitals can afford to take it because the Federal bureaucracy has ground down the reimbursements. Then someone said Newt Gingrich wanted to abolish Medicare or have it wither away. That is absolutely flat wrong. Members cannot use that form of demagoguery in this body and expect to get away with it. Former Speaker Gingrich said HCFA is a problem. Frankly, I can show case after case after case where HCFA and the bureaucracy were a problem. He wanted to change the system so that seniors got good health care and you did not have a bureaucracy ratcheting down and controlling prices so rural hospitals such as a hospital in my home State could not afford to take seniors and doctors had to say: We cannot take any more Medicare patients because we are getting reimbursed from Medicare less than it costs us and we cannot give balanced billing so we have to arbitrarily ration on health care to the elderly because of the way Medicare is implemented. That is wrong. That is what this bill is going to improve. I hope my colleagues will look at the significant improvements this $400 billion, 10-year bill will bring to improving health care for seniors and giving the seniors now better health care and assuring that seniors in the future--the current generation will be paid for--have the health care when they need it. I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BOND. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Inhofe, providing for implementation plans and no preclusion of other provisions relating to the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have some amendments that have been cleared on both sides. First, I send an amendment to the desk for Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Edwards, dealing with a study on Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are ready to accept the amendment by voice vote.

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

Mr. BOND. We have no further statements on this side.

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are awaiting one more Senator who has an amendment to be offered. We are getting to the point where we hope we can go to a voice vote on final passage as soon as possible to expedite the work of the committee. I have asked our cloakroom to check to see if the Senator is going to be joining us to offer his amendment.

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