Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to help curtail abuses of government-issued credit cards throughout the Federal Government. I am pleased to join Representative Wilson who is introducing an identical measure in the House today and I thank him for his interest and work on this important issue. I am also very glad to have Senator Byrd co-sponsor my bill. He has been a staunch advocate for improved management of government credit programs and I have been honored to work with him on this issue in the past. As many of my colleagues are aware, I have been working for several years to expose abuses of government purchase cards and travel cards, starting with the largest user of government charge cards, the Department of Defense. Working with the GAO, former subcommittee Chairman Horn in the House, and others, we have been able to uncover a disturbing number of instances where DOD-issued credit cards have been abused. When I say abused, I mean government credit cards were used to pay for everything from cars to Caribbean cruises. The list also includes furniture, breast implants, and gentleman's clubs. So what does all of this mean for the American taxpayer? In the case of government purchase cards, it means that hardworking Americans are paying for government employees' Christmas shopping. Purchase cards are intended to be used to purchase supplies or other items needed by a government agency and are paid directly by the agency with taxpayer money. However, it is hard to justify payments on a sapphire ring, kitchen appliances, and gift certificates to department stores as necessary office expenses. Astoundingly, these are examples of charges that have been made and paid for out of the taxpayer's pocket with no questions asked. Government travel cards work differently, but are still subject to abuses that negatively impact the American public. They are issued to individual employees for use on official travel. The employee must pay the bill and is reimbursed by the agency. Unfortunately, government travel cards are routinely issued to individuals who have a bad credit history or even a record of credit card fraud. This opens up the door for abuse. Not only have travel cards been used for questionable travel expenses, but travel cards have been used when employees are not on official travel to pay for items from gambling and prostitution to tickets for a pop music concert by the Backstreet Boys. Some employees have committed fraud by repeatedly writing bad checks to pay travel card bills and some have taken government funds in reimbursement for travel expenses and not paid off their travel card bills. When a travel card bill is not paid on time, the agency loses out on rebates that the agency would otherwise receive from the credit card company. These rebates add up. In fact, in fiscal year 2001, the Federal Government received $71 million in rebates, but this amount declined in fiscal year 2002 to $69.2 million mainly due to delinquencies in paying off travel cards. We're talking real money and, especially in a time of budgetary belt-tightening, this trend cannot be allowed to continue. In addition, since Bank of America took over the DOD charge card contract in 1998, it had to ``charge off'' over $61 million dollars in bad debt. The military service branches have recovered less than $24 million of that amount, leaving almost $40 million in losses to the credit card company. In fact, the situation got so bad that Bank of America considered dropping its account with DOD. Although actions by DOD to reduce delinquencies and recover bad debt through methods like salary offsets have now improved the situation somewhat, this scandal has left a black mark on the reputation of the Federal Government. Furthermore, these losses inflicted on credit card companies by Federal employees hurt the millions of innocent Americans who are credit card customers by raising the interest rates and fees the company must charge. What we have learned through our investigation of the travel card and purchase card programs in the Department of Defense is that these abuses were allowed to occur as a result of weak internal controls. The revelations about DOD sparked questions about the possibility of similar deficiencies in other departments. In fact, subsequent work with the GAO and agency Inspectors General has uncovered weak internal controls in the travel card and purchase card programs of agencies like the Department of Education, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Agriculture leading to wasteful and questionable purchases with taxpayer dollars. We know about HUD employees using agency purchase cards for personal shopping sprees at stores like Best Buy and JC Penny, FAA employees purchasing individual subscriptions to Internet providers and gift cards from Home Depot, and Department of Agriculture employees using travel cards to buy a car and enroll in bartending school. The list goes on. Clearly, this is a problem that needs to be addressed government- wide. Ideally, Federal agencies would get their own houses in order. Unfortunately, the atrocious abuses that have been uncovered in the charge card programs of agency after agency would likely never have come to light without congressional oversight. In fact, the positive developments we have seen so far in curtailing government credit card abuses have been the result of Congress cajoling the bureaucracy to put controls in place. The bill I am introducing today would require all agencies to promulgate regulations to establish safeguards and internal controls to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of Federal purchase cards and travel cards. The GAO has now issued an Audit Guide for auditing and investigating the internal control of government purchase card programs, which it developed based on its experiences auditing various agencies purchase card programs. This excellent guide outlines five standards for internal control to curtail fraudulent, improper, and abusive purchases. These include: establishing a positive control environment among agency management and employees, providing for a risk assessment, implementing control activities to enforce management directives and help ensure actions are taken to reduce risks, recording and communicating information to program managers and others who need it, and ongoing monitoring. My bill would go a long way to push agencies toward the effective management approach GAO has outlined. In fact, my bill requires agencies to establish policies for purchase card programs, and travel card programs where applicable, that incorporate many of the specific recommendations GAO has made to various agencies as a result of its investigations. These include: training for cardholders as well as approving officials and agency program coordinators, establishing who is eligible to be a cardholder and limits on how much they can charge, limiting the number of cards distributed to those who really need them, establishing requirements for documentation and records to support each purchase, cancelling cards for employees who leave or transfer, and establishing penalties to hold card holders and approving officials accountable for misuse. My bill also requires that credit checks be performed before issuing a government charge card and that no one found to be not creditworthy be issued a government credit card. In my opinion, it is absurb that this is not standard practice. Government employees who could never get a private credit card due to bad credit, bankrupty, or history of fraud will no longer be handed a government charge card with no questions asked. Finally, my bill would provide that the each agency Inspector General will periodically conduct risk assessments of agency purchase card and travel card programs and perform periodic audits to identify potential fraudulent, improper, and abusive use of cards. We have had great success working with Inspectors General using techniques like data mining to reveal instances of improper use of government charge cards. The information continually provided to the head of each executive agency as well as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Comptroller General by each agency IG will be an enormous help in strengthening and maintaining a rigious system of internal controls to prevent future instances of waste, fraud, and abuse with government charge cards. Due to aggressive congressional oversight and the efforts of talented investigators working for the GAO and agency IG's, we now know that weak internal control over agency purchase and travel card programs has lead to waste, fraud, and abuse across the Federal Government. It has come to the point that Congress must intervene to require agencies to put in place the policies and procedures necessary to stop the misuse of taxpayer dollars and the abuse of the public trust. I wish I could say this bill is a silver bullet and that once enacted, all the problems with government credit cards will disappear, but I don't pretend this is the case. Ultimately, it is up to agency officials and program managers to implement best practices for managing purchase card and travel card programs. To that end, I would encourage all agencies to take a close look at the GAO Audit Guide and use its approach. Meanwhile, continued congressional oversight will still be necessary. Nevertheless, my bill will serve to kick-start the bureaucracy into taking this problem seriously and I believe it will be a big step toward putting the lid back on the Federal cookie jar. I know many of my colleagues are equally appalled by the many tales of credit card fraud and abuse perpetrated on the American public and I would urge senators to join me in this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. It is my understanding that we have 6 minutes 20 seconds remaining on our side.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself such time as I might consume of that amount. There are three big problems with Senator Biden's amendment. One is substantive and two are procedural. Before I go into the problems with Senator Biden's amendment, I will say that I agree with everybody's concern, including his, about the size of the package and the concern that we should have about the Federal deficit. Hopefully, as the economy grows--and the last figures indicate it is growing now at 3.4 percent--Federal revenues will return then to their average levels of 18 to 19 percent of the gross domestic product, which is an average of over the last 60 years, and we will close the gap. I also point to the fact that there are really two sides to the Federal ledger. One is the revenue side; that is, what comes in from the taxes paid by our factory workers, office workers, and farmers from across the America. The other side of the ledger is the spending side of the ledger, the appropriations bills by the Congress of the United States. My friends on the other side of the aisle, as Senator Biden's amendment shows, are zeroing in exclusively on the tax side. They look only to the taxpayers to put our fiscal house in order. I agree with the goal of reducing the deficit. I disagree that it is appropriate to look at only one side as if what is wrong with America and what is the cause of the deficit is that American taxpayers are undertaxed and that in no way Congress overspends. Indeed, the Finance Committee approved a bill yesterday that included $55 billion in revenue offsets. So Republicans have been willing to exercise fiscal discipline, especially when it comes to closing corporate loopholes and curtailing tax shelters. I ask the full Senate, who was the last Democrat to propose any savings on the spending side of the ledger? I do not recall a single spending cut being proposed by those on the other side of the aisle. Maybe back in the mid-1990s, but we would have to go back many years. All I see, and Senator Santorum makes this clear with his spendometer chart, is spending increases. So if those on the other side want to claim to be fiscal disciplinarians, let us see entries on the spending side of the ledger in order for there to be credibility. We cannot just go to the American people and ask for more tax money. Let me also say that I am concerned about the degree to which taxpayers are financing reconstruction in Iraq on a blank check basis. I first raised this concern almost a year ago. We ought to be very careful about the structure of this aid package. Maybe it should be a loan or have some equity interest for the taxpayers. Now I would like to turn to Senator Biden's amendment. Let us go to the substantive problems first. Senator Biden is seeking to offset the President's $87 billion request with a tax increase. For 2001, the top rate was reduced to 38.6. For 2003, the top rate was reduced to 35 percent. Senator Biden's amendment would raise the top rate to 38.2 percent. The premise of Senator Biden's position seems to be that taxpayers in the top bracket are solely Park Avenue millionaires, clipping coupons and enjoying life. Well, the facts show quite differently. According to the Treasury Department, about 80 percent of the benefits of the top rate go to small businessowners, people who create 80 percent of the new jobs in America. For the first time in many years, because of our tax bills, we have that top rate down to 35 percent, which is the very same as Fortune 500 companies. Senator Biden's amendment would restore a 10-percent penalty against small business, 38.2 percent, as opposed to 35 percent now for small business, the same as corporations. I do not quarrel with the notion that taxpayers in the top bracket make incomes starting in the range of around $350,000 to $400,000. A lot of these successful small businessowners make those figures. But keep in mind that figure represents the total net income of those small businesses. Successful small businesses are those that purchase the equipment and hire those new workers that I referred to as 80 percent of the new jobs. I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle who are eager to raise taxes--they are reluctant to cut spending and eager to increase spending--to focus on the negative effects of their policy on small business. Small business creates many jobs. Why at this time, with high unemployment, would we want to raise taxes on the folks who create 80 percent of the new jobs? Just yesterday, the Finance Committee, on a 19-2 vote, reported a bill designed to cut the top marginal rate for small business manufacturers to 32 percent. Senator Biden's amendment would go the other way and hammer our small business manufacturers. Now, let's discuss the two procedural problems. The first procedural problem is also constitutional. Under the Constitution, revenue measures must originate in the House. Senator Biden's amendment is a tax increase. It is a clear case of a revenue measure. The Ways and Means Committee has indicated the House will exercise its Constitutional prerogative and ``blue slip'' this bill if it contains Senator Biden's amendment. A blue slip kills this bill. We go back to square one. A vote for the Biden amendment is a vote to stop aid to our troops. It is a vote to stop aid to the Iraqi people at a critical time. Let me repeat that point. A vote for the Biden amendment is a vote against aid to our troops. A vote for the Biden amendment is a vote against assistance to the Iraqi people. From my own perspective, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I have to warn members of our committee that the Biden amendment raises a fundamental tax issue on an unrelated bill. The Biden amendment treads on Finance Committee's jurisdiction. Every Finance Committee member should oppose Senator Biden's amendment on that basis alone. But, most importantly, this amendment is a reckless attack on our economic recovery and I strongly urge its defeat. I ask Senators to defeat the Biden amendment and not increase taxes on small business.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I have worked at packing plants; I worked at the Waterloo Register Company. I never had one poor person provide the job for me. I always had somebody who makes a lot more money than I do provide the jobs for me. We don't want to choke that off in America.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I am saying it is unfair to tax small business that is not incorporated at a higher rate than the tax on Fortune 500s, No. 1. Number 2, this may only be 2 percent of the employers, but they are the people who create the jobs.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce, along with Senator Baucus, an extension of a bipartisan policy to help reduce the number of people living without health insurance today. In simplist terms, our bill extends the 65 percent credit offered to people eligible for trade adjustment assistance, and to certain PBGC beneficiaries, to those workers eligible for unemployment insurance. Is it perfect policy? No. Does it ``solve'' the problem of the uninsured? it does not. But it's an important step in the right direction. I do not subscribe to the view that ``incrementalism'' when it comes to covering the uninsured, is dead. With census figures showing the number of Americans living without health insurance increasing, even small steps are steps in the right direction. Incrementalism has made a difference. For example, the few million people we covered with this tax credit in last year's trade promotion authority bill made a difference. The S-CHIP program made a difference. I believe Medical Savings Accounts and the small group market reforms we made in HIPAA all have made a difference in controlling what would otherwise be a much larger number of people without health insurance. This year, Congress, in a bipartisan way, put $50 billion into a reserve fund to address the rising number of uninsured. The year is more than almost over, and nothing has been done, or even discussed. I will not let a bipartisan consensus to spend $50 billion on improving access to health insurance lay there on the table. Iowans expect us to do get things done. And to get anything, even something small, done on a problem this big, it's got to be bipartisan. That's why I am glad to be building on my work with Senator Baucus and making this important, novel program available to more Americans. I am looking forward to exploring still more options in the Finance Committee on reducing the uninsured in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce, along with Senator Baucus, an extension of a bipartisan policy to help reduce the number of people living without health insurance today. In simplist terms, our bill extends the 65 percent credit offered to people eligible for trade adjustment assistance, and to certain PBGC beneficiaries, to those workers eligible for unemployment insurance. Is it perfect policy? No. Does it ``solve'' the problem of the uninsured? it does not. But it's an important step in the right direction. I do not subscribe to the view that ``incrementalism'' when it comes to covering the uninsured, is dead. With census figures showing the number of Americans living without health insurance increasing, even small steps are steps in the right direction. Incrementalism has made a difference. For example, the few million people we covered with this tax credit in last year's trade promotion authority bill made a difference. The S-CHIP program made a difference. I believe Medical Savings Accounts and the small group market reforms we made in HIPAA all have made a difference in controlling what would otherwise be a much larger number of people without health insurance. This year, Congress, in a bipartisan way, put $50 billion into a reserve fund to address the rising number of uninsured. The year is more than almost over, and nothing has been done, or even discussed. I will not let a bipartisan consensus to spend $50 billion on improving access to health insurance lay there on the table. Iowans expect us to do get things done. And to get anything, even something small, done on a problem this big, it's got to be bipartisan. That's why I am glad to be building on my work with Senator Baucus and making this important, novel program available to more Americans. I am looking forward to exploring still more options in the Finance Committee on reducing the uninsured in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I look forward to working with you on this issue in the near future.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Landrieu, Senator Bunning and I are happy to introduce the Adoption Promotion Act of 2003, a bill that would extend and improve the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. Across the country there are thousands of children of all ages and needs who are waiting to be adopted into stable families. This legislation provides a reward to States that place an emphasis on finding loving homes for children who are in foster care. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 rewarded States with cash incentives for increasing the number of adoptions of children in foster care, concentrating on children with special needs. Adoption levels were on the rise before the introduction of this legislation, but grew even faster after implementation of the program. Studies project that an additional 34,000 children were adopted during the first 3 years of the program. Currently each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have received incentive payments from the increased number of adoptions. My home State of Iowa just received a payment of $524,000 because of its success in finding children in foster care permanent homes. The results are clear, adoption incentives are working. There are many people in this country who have opened their arms to children that do not fit the typical mold. The Lippert family of Council Bluffs, IA is just one example. Over the last 25 years, they have adopted 16 children, in addition to their two biological children. Their doors are still open to children in need. Within the next 6 months their nest will become even larger; they have three teenage girls who are in the process of being adopted. All but one of these children have special needs, ranging from emotional to physical disabilities. None of these challenges have stopped the Lippert family from helping their children become successful members of the community. The Lippert family has given these children a chance to be part of a loving and permanent family, an opportunity they would otherwise not have had. But much remains to be done. While adoption incentives have helped states place a large number of children in families, there are still thousands of children without such luck. The incentive program helps to promote the needs of children for whom it is challenging to find an adoptive home. Take for example, children over the age of 9. The probability that these children will ever find a permanent home exceeds the probability they will be adopted into a loving family. This legislation adds an incentive for States to increase the number of older children adopted out of foster care. Adoption is a positive life-changing experience. My bill builds upon the success of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. It recognizes these successes and continues to challenge States to remove children from foster care and place them with a permanent family. Adoptions give children a loving home and families an opportunity to share their love with a child in need. I encourage the Senate to consider this important piece of legislation and continue to reward States that are working to place children in permanent homes. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. It is also my hope that we can get this bipartisan bill through Congress and allow it to become law. I would like to thank you, Senator Bunning, and the other members of the Senate who have worked so hard on this legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I appreciate that the Senator from Kentucky has worked so hard with me on the reauthorization of the Adoption Incentive Program. I also appreciate the lead the Senator took several months ago when he introduced the original legislation to reauthorize this program, which was based on the administration's proposal. This was an important step to help get the ball rolling on this program's reauthorization. Our legislation builds upon the Adoption Incentive Program created in the Adoption and Safe Family Act of 1997. This bill sets the authorization level for this program at $43 million for each of fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008. Through this legislation, States would continue to be rewarded for all increased adoptions of children in foster care. States that earn incentive payments for increased adoptions of foster children would also continue to be rewarded for increased adoptions of special needs children. However, the special needs payment would be limited only to adoptions of special needs children who are under age 9 at the time the adoption is finalized. Senator Bunning, as you well know, our bill would create a third incentive payment, for each increased adoption of all children in foster care who are age 9 or older at the time of adoption. This is important because children over the age of nine are less likely to find a permanent adoptive home. In fact, the probability that these children never find a permanent home exceeds the probability they will be adopted into a loving family.

Mr. GRASSLEY. My home State of Iowa and its child welfare program has also benefited from this program. Last year, Iowa received a payment of $524,000 because of its success in finding children in foster care, permanent homes. Our States' successes underscore the results of this program; adoption incentives are working.

Mr. GRASSLEY. In the recent past, Congress has also taken some positive steps to promote adoption through tax credit. In 2001, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I extended and expanded two important provisions which provide tax relief for adoptive families. The 2001 tax bill ensured that neither adoption tax credit, nor the exclusion from income for qualified employer-paid adoption expenses expired. In addition, the amount of each of these benefits was doubled--i.e., from $5,000 to $10,000 per qualifying child. Finally, in the case of special needs adoptions, Congress eliminated expense reporting requirements thus ensuring that the families who take special needs children into their homes receive the maximum relief possible under these provisions, while minimizing their administrative burdens.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I appreciate that the Senator from Kentucky has worked so hard with me on the reauthorization of the Adoption Incentive Program. I also appreciate the lead the Senator took several months ago when he introduced the original legislation to reauthorize this program, which was based on the administration's proposal. This was an important step to help get the ball rolling on this program's reauthorization. Our legislation builds upon the Adoption Incentive Program created in the Adoption and Safe Family Act of 1997. This bill sets the authorization level for this program at $43 million for each of fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008. Through this legislation, States would continue to be rewarded for all increased adoptions of children in foster care. States that earn incentive payments for increased adoptions of foster children would also continue to be rewarded for increased adoptions of special needs children. However, the special needs payment would be limited only to adoptions of special needs children who are under age 9 at the time the adoption is finalized. Senator Bunning, as you well know, our bill would create a third incentive payment, for each increased adoption of all children in foster care who are age 9 or older at the time of adoption. This is important because children over the age of nine are less likely to find a permanent adoptive home. In fact, the probability that these children never find a permanent home exceeds the probability they will be adopted into a loving family.

Mr. GRASSLEY. My home State of Iowa and its child welfare program has also benefited from this program. Last year, Iowa received a payment of $524,000 because of its success in finding children in foster care, permanent homes. Our States' successes underscore the results of this program; adoption incentives are working.

Mr. GRASSLEY. In the recent past, Congress has also taken some positive steps to promote adoption through tax credit. In 2001, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I extended and expanded two important provisions which provide tax relief for adoptive families. The 2001 tax bill ensured that neither adoption tax credit, nor the exclusion from income for qualified employer-paid adoption expenses expired. In addition, the amount of each of these benefits was doubled--i.e., from $5,000 to $10,000 per qualifying child. Finally, in the case of special needs adoptions, Congress eliminated expense reporting requirements thus ensuring that the families who take special needs children into their homes receive the maximum relief possible under these provisions, while minimizing their administrative burdens.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I look forward to working with you on this issue in the near future.

Mr. GRASSLEY. It is also my hope that we can get this bipartisan bill through Congress and allow it to become law. I would like to thank you, Senator Bunning, and the other members of the Senate who have worked so hard on this legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Landrieu, Senator Bunning and I are happy to introduce the Adoption Promotion Act of 2003, a bill that would extend and improve the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. Across the country there are thousands of children of all ages and needs who are waiting to be adopted into stable families. This legislation provides a reward to States that place an emphasis on finding loving homes for children who are in foster care. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 rewarded States with cash incentives for increasing the number of adoptions of children in foster care, concentrating on children with special needs. Adoption levels were on the rise before the introduction of this legislation, but grew even faster after implementation of the program. Studies project that an additional 34,000 children were adopted during the first 3 years of the program. Currently each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have received incentive payments from the increased number of adoptions. My home State of Iowa just received a payment of $524,000 because of its success in finding children in foster care permanent homes. The results are clear, adoption incentives are working. There are many people in this country who have opened their arms to children that do not fit the typical mold. The Lippert family of Council Bluffs, IA is just one example. Over the last 25 years, they have adopted 16 children, in addition to their two biological children. Their doors are still open to children in need. Within the next 6 months their nest will become even larger; they have three teenage girls who are in the process of being adopted. All but one of these children have special needs, ranging from emotional to physical disabilities. None of these challenges have stopped the Lippert family from helping their children become successful members of the community. The Lippert family has given these children a chance to be part of a loving and permanent family, an opportunity they would otherwise not have had. But much remains to be done. While adoption incentives have helped states place a large number of children in families, there are still thousands of children without such luck. The incentive program helps to promote the needs of children for whom it is challenging to find an adoptive home. Take for example, children over the age of 9. The probability that these children will ever find a permanent home exceeds the probability they will be adopted into a loving family. This legislation adds an incentive for States to increase the number of older children adopted out of foster care. Adoption is a positive life-changing experience. My bill builds upon the success of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. It recognizes these successes and continues to challenge States to remove children from foster care and place them with a permanent family. Adoptions give children a loving home and families an opportunity to share their love with a child in need. I encourage the Senate to consider this important piece of legislation and continue to reward States that are working to place children in permanent homes. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his work on the extension for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Unfortunately, this program has had to be extended several times while the Senate finance Committee worked to complete a very ambitious agenda. Happily, though, the Senate finance Committee was able to report a welfare reauthorization bill on September 10, 2003. I plan to file the committee bill shortly. It is critical that the Senate act swiftly to complete action on this legislation. This program has languished, unauthorized, for a year. States need to make plans to adjust to the new provisions. Recipients need some assurances that the program will continue. It was my preference that Senate action on the welfare bill take place this fall, but I understand that the time frame for adjournment is fluid and this impacts what the Leader is able to bring to the floor. Additionally, I would have preferred a shorter extension, in order to keep the process moving forward. I do not want to send the signal that since we are passing a 6-month extension, this means that there will be no action on this legislation until March next year. If that should occur, we would find ourselves in the position of having to seek yet another extension. This is a situation which can only be avoided, in my view, by prompt action on this legislation. I understand why the majority leader wants a 6-month extension because I recognize that it is nearly impossible to envision a scenario in which the Senate passes a bill, the House and Senate have a conference, a conference report is drafted and filed and the measure goes back to both houses for a final vote, prior to a possible adjournment date in late November. But if it becomes at all possible for the Senate to act on the legislation in what remains of this session, leaving conference committee consideration for early next year, we should certainly do that. It is my intention, if a window of opportunity does open up before we adjourn for the year, to work with the Leadership to bring this legislation up for consideration. In the event that such a window of opportunity does not open up in what remains of this session, I am confident that this bill will be among the first pieces of legislation brought up for consideration as soon as we reconvene next year. montana's welfare waiver

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I understand the concerns of the Senator from Montana, and look forward to continuing to work with him to reauthorize the TANF program in the coming months. I appreciate his concern for the need for Montana to pursue welfare policies it believe make sense in that State. I agree that we will discuss these and other issues as we reauthorize the TANF program and am also optimistic we will be able to reach an understanding on these policies. Mr. President, current law penalizes rural and small urban facilities by paying them 1.6 percent less on every inpatient discharge than their counterparts in urban areas of a million or more people. This is one reason for MedPAC's finding that Medicare inpatient profit margins are substantially worse for rural and small urban facilities than for those located in large urban areas. The provision raises the inpatient base rate for hospitals in rural and small urban areas to the same rate as that in large urban areas from October 1, 2003 through March 31, 2004. Every State except Rhode Island has rural or small urban hospitals, so 49 States will benefit from this provision. The fiscal year 2003 omnibus Appropriations bill included a 6-month version of this policy. The policy ends on September 30, 2003. A permanent version of this policy was included in the Senate- and House- passed prescription drug bills this summer. MedPAC has endorsed a permanent version of this policy in its 2003 recommendations. The cost of the provision is $300 million, for the 6-month period beginning October 1, 2003 and ending March 31, 2004, according to preliminary scores from CBO. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the preliminary CBO estimates.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.