John Sununu

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 2, 2005, at 3 p.m. to hold a hearing on U.S.-India Nuclear Energy Cooperation.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, November 2, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing entitled, ``Hurricane Katrina: Why Did the Levees Fail?''

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, November 2 at 9:30 a.m. The Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold the second in a series of two hearings to receive testimony on the response to Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 2 at 2 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1541, to protect, conserve, and restore public lands administered by the Department of the Interior or the Forest Service and adjacent land through cooperative cost-share grants to control and mitigate the spread of invasive species, and for other purposes; S. 1548, to provide for the conveyance of certain forest service land to the city of Coffman Cove, Alaska; S. 1552, to amend public law 97-435 to extend the authorization for the Secretary of the Interior to release certain conditions contained in a patent concerning certain lands conveyed by the United States to Eastern Washington University until December 31, 2009; H.R. 482, to provide for a land exchange involving Federal lands in the Lincoln National Forest in the State of New Mexico; and S. 405, a bill to provide for the conveyance of certain public land in Clark County, Nevada, for use as a heliport.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, today I introduced the ``Specially Adapted Housing Grants Act of 2005'' to help all disabled veterans move home from medical facilities. The bill upgrades eligibility criteria for housing assistance grants to better reflect the needs of today's veteran community. Before discussing the legislation's merits, I want to acknowledge my House colleague, Representative John Boozman of Arkansas, who serves as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity. Congressman Boozman has demonstrated real leadership on this issue through his bill, the ``Veterans Housing/Improvement Act of 2005, H.R. 3665. Section 101 of Congressman Boozman's bill is almost identical to the measure that I have sponsored. The House Veterans Affairs' Committee recently approved his legislation, and the full House is expected to consider the bill in the near future. I am grateful to Congressman Boozman for his considerable efforts to advance a measure that will help improve the lives of many disabled veterans, and I am happy to advance his efforts here in the Senate with this bill. I appreciate the support of my Senate colleagues, Senators Durbin, Vitter, Kerry and Pryor, who have added their names as original cosponsors of the ``Specially Adapted Housing Grants Act of 2005.'' Their endorsement of this bill represents bipartisan agreement on Capitol Hill that Congress must constantly evaluate veterans programs to make certain that our Nation provides responsive support to veterans. While representing New Hampshire in the House and Senate, I have worked to ensure that those who served in our armed services receive their hard-earned benefits quickly and in full. Too often, out-of-date and burdensome regulations deny qualified veterans from receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. Whenever possible, it is imperative that we remove red tape that does not take into account the realities faced by today's veterans. Guided by these facts, I have introduced legislation to reform rules that determine requirements for a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) grant program that helps many disabled veterans make their homes suitable for occupancy. Currently, a disabled veteran must at least partly own his or her residence to receive VA housing assistance grants to perform necessary residence modifications, such as installing wheelchair ramps or railings. However, many younger veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have not yet had the opportunity to become homeowners. Being ineligible for VA help to modify their homes, these veterans and their families often are compelled to either shoulder the costs of retrofitting their residences or face extended stays in VA medical facilities. My bill would establish a 5-year pilot program to allow severely disabled veterans who live temporarily with family to receive up to $10,000 in adaptive housing assistance; less severely disabled veterans could receive a maximum of $2,000. This grant money will help ensure that all disabled veterans--regardless of whether they own property-- are able to leave hospitals and return home as quickly as possible. Also, mindful that these individuals will likely purchase their own residence, the bill would allow disabled veterans to receive two additional Specially Adaptive Housing Grants to be used for homes that they own in the future. Severely disabled veterans could receive a total of $50,000 to modify residences; less severely disabled veterans would be eligible for a total of $10,000. Only one of the three total grants could be used for a temporary residence, such as a family-owned home. America's veterans have made enormous sacrifices to protect our Nation and the ideals for which it stands. Our country owes a special obligation to those men and women who have become disabled as a result of their service. Under no circumstances should these American heroes be divided into groups of ``haves'' and ``have nots.'' This Nation can do no less than to ensure that all disabled veterans are returned to the normalcy of home life as quickly and comfortably as possible. The common sense changes put forth in the legislation I have introduced aim to do just that, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to ensure that its provisions become law as soon as possible.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, today I introduced the ``Specially Adapted Housing Grants Act of 2005'' to help all disabled veterans move home from medical facilities. The bill upgrades eligibility criteria for housing assistance grants to better reflect the needs of today's veteran community. Before discussing the legislation's merits, I want to acknowledge my House colleague, Representative John Boozman of Arkansas, who serves as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity. Congressman Boozman has demonstrated real leadership on this issue through his bill, the ``Veterans Housing/Improvement Act of 2005, H.R. 3665. Section 101 of Congressman Boozman's bill is almost identical to the measure that I have sponsored. The House Veterans Affairs' Committee recently approved his legislation, and the full House is expected to consider the bill in the near future. I am grateful to Congressman Boozman for his considerable efforts to advance a measure that will help improve the lives of many disabled veterans, and I am happy to advance his efforts here in the Senate with this bill. I appreciate the support of my Senate colleagues, Senators Durbin, Vitter, Kerry and Pryor, who have added their names as original cosponsors of the ``Specially Adapted Housing Grants Act of 2005.'' Their endorsement of this bill represents bipartisan agreement on Capitol Hill that Congress must constantly evaluate veterans programs to make certain that our Nation provides responsive support to veterans. While representing New Hampshire in the House and Senate, I have worked to ensure that those who served in our armed services receive their hard-earned benefits quickly and in full. Too often, out-of-date and burdensome regulations deny qualified veterans from receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. Whenever possible, it is imperative that we remove red tape that does not take into account the realities faced by today's veterans. Guided by these facts, I have introduced legislation to reform rules that determine requirements for a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) grant program that helps many disabled veterans make their homes suitable for occupancy. Currently, a disabled veteran must at least partly own his or her residence to receive VA housing assistance grants to perform necessary residence modifications, such as installing wheelchair ramps or railings. However, many younger veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have not yet had the opportunity to become homeowners. Being ineligible for VA help to modify their homes, these veterans and their families often are compelled to either shoulder the costs of retrofitting their residences or face extended stays in VA medical facilities. My bill would establish a 5-year pilot program to allow severely disabled veterans who live temporarily with family to receive up to $10,000 in adaptive housing assistance; less severely disabled veterans could receive a maximum of $2,000. This grant money will help ensure that all disabled veterans--regardless of whether they own property-- are able to leave hospitals and return home as quickly as possible. Also, mindful that these individuals will likely purchase their own residence, the bill would allow disabled veterans to receive two additional Specially Adaptive Housing Grants to be used for homes that they own in the future. Severely disabled veterans could receive a total of $50,000 to modify residences; less severely disabled veterans would be eligible for a total of $10,000. Only one of the three total grants could be used for a temporary residence, such as a family-owned home. America's veterans have made enormous sacrifices to protect our Nation and the ideals for which it stands. Our country owes a special obligation to those men and women who have become disabled as a result of their service. Under no circumstances should these American heroes be divided into groups of ``haves'' and ``have nots.'' This Nation can do no less than to ensure that all disabled veterans are returned to the normalcy of home life as quickly and comfortably as possible. The common sense changes put forth in the legislation I have introduced aim to do just that, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to ensure that its provisions become law as soon as possible.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I have a technical modification to one of my amendments that has been pending. It is amendment No. 2215. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside, that amendment be called up, and I be allowed to submit the modification to the desk.

Mr. SUNUNU. I yield the floor.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, as the Senator from Massachusetts indicated, I would like to rise very briefly to offer two amendments and then allow the Senator from Massachusetts to continue with the remarks on his own amendment. I will offer a few remarks, but hopefully we can work out the issues that might exist on these two amendments. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside that I might call up amendment No. 2214.

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

Mr. SUNUNU. The Senator is correct.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, this amendment calls for $5 million to be allocated to a vision rehabilitation therapy demonstration program under Medicare. It is an amendment that is fully offset. This is a demonstration program that was established under report language crafted by Chairman Specter last year. This is an opportunity to give seniors additional independence by helping to cover some of the cost of vision rehabilitation therapy for those who have vision impairment. It helps them to do the very basic things of getting around their home, getting outside the home, doing errands. By maintaining this independence by dealing with vision problems, we reduce the risk of injury and the costs of injuries associated with vision impairment. As I indicated, it is offset. It is an existing program. This additional $5 million in funding would ensure that the demonstration is conducted across a number of States, a number of cities, so that CMS has the data it needs to judge the efficacy of the program. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. Amendment No. 2215

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendments aside, and I call up amendment No. 2215.

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

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, this second amendment deals with community health center funding. Community health centers have been supported broadly in Congress and very broadly by the administration. What this amendment does is bring the appropriate level of funding for community health centers in this bill up to the level requested by the President. Less than 25 percent of the applications for new community health centers were funded last year. That indicates a need for continued significant levels of funding. Health centers are the first line of defense for those who are served by Medicaid, for those without insurance, and for those who are underinsured. Community health centers provide a very strong, competent, qualified level of service. They are absolutely instrumental in today's health care environment. This brings the funding up to the President's requested level. It is offset so it is not subject to a point of order. This bill is about setting priorities. I respect the challenges the chairman and the members of the subcommittee have to deal with in setting priorities. It is never easy. I provide a fractional across-the-board reduction to support this additional $200 million, but I am certainly willing to work with the chairman and members of the subcommittee to find another appropriate offset. I hope he and the Members of the Senate will support my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, if I might reserve the right to object, we had this conversation on the floor before. The bill has been brought to the floor, and attempts have been made to pass it by unanimous consent. This bill includes provisions that change the reimbursement rates under Medicaid for 29 States, regardless of how many evacuees they might have in that State, regardless of whether they were affected by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. It is completely inappropriate to try to make adjustments in Medicaid under the umbrella or the cover of hurricane relief. There are legitimate questions about whether and how we can provide assistance to those under Medicaid affected by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. Eight States have already been granted waivers to modify eligibility to help provide that coverage. But in an effort to deal with some of the concerns I have--and other Senators have concerns about this bill-- this $9 billion bill to support a statute that gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to change reimbursement rates to compensate States for additional costs incurred under Medicaid as a result of the hurricane, we would put into law the uncompensated care pool that is part of this legislation to help deal with some of the costs outside of Medicaid. We have even proposed providing some support and assistance to community health centers, something that is not even in this legislation--community health centers being so critical to providing assistance not just to Medicaid beneficiaries but to those who are underinsured or those who are without any health insurance for whatever reason. I think these are very reasonable proposals. I think this is a good-faith effort to address some of the concerns that have been presented, but even in the absence of legislation through the State waiver process, through the efforts of Secretary Leavitt of Health and Human Services, I think every good-faith effort is being made to provide assistance, to provide coverage to those in need. Given that fact, I will object at this time to the unanimous-consent request.

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I apologize for taking additional time, I know Senator Reed is due to be recognized by consent as soon as this lengthy and, in my opinion, unnecessary discussion is complete. It is important to note this bill does not take the funding out of FEMA as has been represented. We suggested that.

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, I object.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise in support of the McCain amendment. There has been a lot of discussion about the new challenges we face in dealing with organized terrorist cells around the world. The complexity and the nature of those terrorist threats requires us to engage in ever more combat activity that is nonconventional. We want to make sure we do what we can to secure transportation and infrastructure, that we do what we can to deploy technology, that we improve our preparedness. But it does not change the fact that in dealing with terrorism our greatest asset or our greatest tool will be intelligence gathering. Intelligence gathering will require direct engagement with and interrogation of suspects, trying to gather information that can help us disrupt these networks. We are trying to gather information that can help us prevent future attacks. That process of interrogation, needless to say, is complex and challenging. We have seen many of the problems and some of the abuses that have been documented by some of the previous speakers. I think this calls out for a process that is more clear and better defined; interrogation tools, techniques, and procedures that we can be sure are applied consistently in the field. That is why I think this amendment is so important. That is why I think we have a fundamental obligation to support this amendment or at least some approach to clarify these processes, standards, and procedures used for interrogation. I can think of two basic reasons that this is important and that it will benefit our troops and our country. First, by establishing clear lines, procedures, and process for interrogation, we help our own troops, whether working in the uniformed services or working in covert operations or other intelligence-gathering activities. We can be sure that they know what the allowances are, that they know what the process is, that they know what the procedure is, and, in effect, we provide them with appropriate protection and safeguards in doing their job. In a similar way, we provide those individuals with protection in the field of combat should they be taken as a prisoner of war. We want to make sure our enemies do not have justification for using any interrogation techniques that we would consider to be improper, cruel, or inhumane. First, we are providing protection and establishing this clarity. Second, I think we are sending an important message to our allies and our adversaries--a message that while the legal standards that are enshrined in the Constitution do not apply to everyone in the world, our commitment to these basic principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, our commitment to basic principles of human dignity and human rights do apply and we must find ways to define these standards, to clarify this commitment, even in the area of interrogating enemy combatants and interrogating potential terrorists, suspected terrorists, in the field. So we send a clear message to our allies and adversaries that our commitment to these principles is real, that our desire to establish uniform standards is real. I do not know, not having the experience of some of my colleagues, whether this is the perfect standard, whether the requirements and the precise language in this amendment are ideal, but I think this is a fair-minded approach that allows the military itself, through its code of conduct, to establish these definitions that allows for the establishment of a classified annex to deal with covert operations, deal with the most sensitive of captives and the most sensitive of interrogations so that we are not undermining the intelligence gathering that we are attempting to facilitate. In fact, the approach that is taken has been endorsed, as was indicated by the Senator from Arizona, by many who have had very close and intimate experience with this type of interrogation. In the letter that Senator McCain entered into the Record there were two particular points that were made that I want to underscore, and that is, first, ``the abuse of prisoners hurts America's cause.'' I think that is just a fundamental and important underlying point in this debate, that prisoner abuse hurts our cause. It hurts the moral arguments we are trying to make, the political arguments we are trying to make, and it does put our own men and women serving in uniform or in intelligence- gathering operations at risk. Second, the United States should have one standard for interrogating enemy prisoners that is effective, lawful, and humane. That point brings me back to the concern that we send a clear message to our allies and adversaries that our commitment to human dignity and human rights is universal. So I am pleased to support the amendment. I think it is a very important first step. I think it gives the military the flexibility that it deserves, and I hope the military will use that flexibility well to add clarity, standards, process, and procedure that will enable us to continue to interrogate prisoners and continue to gather intelligence in dealing with these terrorist networks around the world, but do it in a way that is consistent with the intent, the principle, and the philosophy of our Constitution. I yield the floor.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, if I might momentarily reserve the right to object, Mr. Baucus, the Senator from Montana, has given a powerful description of people who are in great need of help. There is no question about that. Many of the States that are affected and other States have taken steps to provide help in many areas, to set up uncompensated care funds to provide assistance to evacuees. I think the Senator from Montana would argue that it is not enough, he would like to do more, and his intention is obviously to bring this bill to the floor to deal with some of these concerns. I have spoken before on this and will not speak at great length now. I do not believe this bill is the right way and the best way to address those concerns. It has a cost of $9 billion. It does include provisions for assistance to States regardless of whether they have evacuees located in them, regardless whether they were hit by the hurricanes. I and other Members have been working with Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus and their staffs to try to come to some agreement, but that has not happened. The question is not whether we should or want to provide assistance, but we want to make sure we do it in a way that ensures that resources get where they are most needed and in a way that takes advantage of the $45 billion or so that has already been appropriated but has not been committed yet. So I do object to the unanimous consent request. I know Senator Lincoln from Arkansas and Senator Landrieu from Louisiana wish to speak on this issue, and I will be more than happy to let each of them do so before returning to the floor, if I am able to do so today, and offer a few remarks. I do object at this time.

Mr. SUNUNU

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

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I will respond in part in supporting my colleagues who objected. We do not object in any way to providing assistance where it is needed. We have already done so, passing $62 billion in new spending, $9 billion in tax relief. That is a very great core relief effort that is providing assistance to those very much in need in the Gulf Coast States and around the country. The question and the point we object to is whether we consider this bill tonight by unanimous consent, an additional $9 billion in spending, several new programs, some of which do not really have anything to do directly with providing emergency assistance for health care or any other services to those people who need it in the Gulf States. That is the question, whether it is imperative we consider this bill now or whether we can move forward in a more deliberative fashion, and whether some of the elements in this bill can be improved. As I said, we provided $62 billion in appropriations, $9 billion in tax relief. So at the very beginning of this discussion we have to ask, with over $40 billion still unexpended and uncommitted, why can't we use a portion of that to cover some of these important needs, some of the health care needs the Senator from Arkansas just described? I think that is one basic reason why I and others object to moving forward tonight on this bill. We ought to be able to find a way to utilize some of the $62 billion we have already passed through the House and the Senate. Second, as I indicated, there is a provision in this legislation that changes reimbursement rates for Medicaid for 29 States, regardless of whether and how many displaced people from the gulf are currently housed in that State, currently seeking services in that State, currently looking for health care or employment in that State. For 29 States whose reimbursement rate was going to change in 2006, we wave the wand and say: No change to reimbursement rates regardless of how you might have been impacted by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. That has nothing to do directly with providing the assistance, the compassion, the care, the health care the previous speakers were describing. I question whether this is an appropriate vehicle to include such a provision. There is $1.5 billion for disaster relief in Medicaid--well intended, well directed. But currently CMS, the regulator of Medicaid, is allowing States to apply for waivers to deliver the very kinds of benefits contemplated in that $1.5 billion program. In fact, Texas and Mississippi and Florida and Alabama have already applied for and have received waivers to do those very things contemplated in the legislation, which begs the question, is this necessary? And if it is necessary in some shape or form, do we need to commit $1.5 billion, or can we wait and at least better understand how the waiver process is proceeding, which has been approved already in those four States? And I hope other States that might apply will get a similar fast response. There is also $800 million in this legislation to provide assistance, financial support to individuals who are covered by private insurance, though indirectly that will provide payment to private insurance companies whose participants were affected by the hurricanes. I would want, first, to answer the question: What are those private insurers doing for the employees they had covered? Are they walking away from those employees and those businesses because they were affected by this tremendous natural catastrophe? I hope that is not the case. I do not know that is the case. But we ought to understand what obligations, what commitments these private insurers are meeting before we commit an additional $800 million that might allow them to walk away from some of their economic or moral obligations for those they have covered in the past. So $1.5 billion in a disaster relief program that is already being addressed through the waiver process, $800 million in support for those covered by private insurance, and changes to reimbursement rates for 29 States, regardless of how they were or might have been impacted by these hurricanes--I think all of those items call into question both the structure and the timing of this legislation. I think we can do better. I think there are a lot of questions as to how the $62 billion that has already been committed is being spent. Other Members have raised the question of working harder to find offsets so any additional spending will have a minimum impact on the deficit and the national debt, which is a challenge and a crisis we are all going to be faced with today and in future generations as well. We do not want to create a future economic catastrophe in our heartfelt efforts to deal with this natural disaster today. There is no question that we need to provide assistance, that we should provide assistance, and that the House and Senate will continue to provide assistance, in all likelihood, in addition to the $62 billion we have already committed and the $9 billion in tax relief that has been added to that. But we need to work very hard to make sure we know how that money is being utilized. I think we should do everything in our power to allow some of those funds to be used for these critical health care costs. And we need to do much more to try to find ways to cover this additional spending so we do not increase the deficit and leave an unfortunate financial legacy for future generations. I think my colleague's objection was warranted. I do not think being more deliberative in addressing this legislation and reviewing this legislation will hurt its efficacy and effectiveness in the long run. But I do think it will serve the public and the country much better in the long run to be as fiscally responsible as we possibly can in addressing these critical needs in the Gulf States. I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SUNUNU

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

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my amendment, No. 1669, be withdrawn.