Medicare Value Purchasing Act of 2005

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will enhance and strengthen transition services that are provided to our military personnel.

As the Senate conducts its business today, thousands of our brave men and women in uniform are in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the globe. These men and women serve with distinction and honor, and we owe them our heartfelt gratitude.

We also owe them our best effort to ensure that they receive the benefits to which their service in our Armed Forces has entitled them. I have heard time and again from military personnel and veterans who are frustrated with the system by which they apply for benefits or appeal claims for benefits. I have long been concerned that

tens of thousands of our veterans are unaware of Federal health care and other benefits for which they may be eligible, and I have undertaken numerous legislative and oversight efforts to ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs makes outreach to our veterans and their families a priority.

While we should do more to support our veterans, we must also ensure that the men and women who are currently serving in our Armed Forces receive adequate pay and benefits, as well as services that help them to make the transition from active duty to civilian life. I am concerned that we are not doing enough to support our men and women in uniform as they prepare to retire or otherwise separate from the service or, in the case of members of our National Guard and Reserve, to demobilize from active duty assignments and return to their civilian lives while staying in the military or preparing to separate from the military. We must ensure that their service and sacrifice, which is much lauded during times of conflict, is not forgotten once the battles have ended and our troops have come home.

The bill that I am introducing today, the Veterans Enhanced Transition Services Act (VETS Act), will help to ensure that all military personnel have access to the same transition services as they prepare to leave the military to reenter civilian life, or, in the case of members of the National Guard and Reserve, as they prepare to demobilize from active duty assignments and return to their civilian lives and jobs or education while remaining in the military.

I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites and members of military and veterans service organizations that our men and women in uniform do not all have access to the same transition counseling and medical services as they are demobilizing from service in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. I have long been concerned about reports of uneven provision of services from base to base and from service to service. All of our men and women in uniform have pledged to serve our country, and all of them, at the very least, deserve to have access to the same services in return.

I introduced similar legislation during the 108th Congress, and I am pleased that a provision that I authored which was based on that bill was enacted as part of the fiscal year 2005 defense authorization bill.

In response to concerns I have heard from a number of my constituents, my amendment, in part, directed the Secretaries of Defense and Labor to jointly explore ways in which DoD training and certification standards could be coordinated with government and private sector training and certification standards for corresponding civilian occupations. Such coordination could help military personnel who wish to pursue civilian employment related to their military specialties to make the transition from the military to comparable civilian jobs. I look forward to reviewing this report.

In addition, this amendment required the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to undertake a comprehensive analysis of existing transition services for our military personnel that are administered by the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Labor and to make recommendations to Congress on how these programs can be improved. My amendment required GAO to focus on two issues: how to achieve the uniform provision of appropriate transition services to all military personnel, and the role of post-deployment and pre-discharge health assessments as part of the larger transition program. GAO released its study ``Military and Veterans' Benefits: Enhanced Services Could Improve Transition Assistance for Reserves and National Guard'' in May 2005, and it plans to release its study on health assessments in the near future.

Just yesterday, GAO provided testimony on its transition services report to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity. That hearing could not have been more timely. We owe it to our men and women in uniform to improve transition programs now as we continue to welcome home thousands of military personnel who are serving our country in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. We should not miss an opportunity to help the men and women who are currently serving our country.

My bill, which is consistent with GAO's recommendations on transition assistance, will help to ensure that all military personnel receive the same services by making a number of improvements to the existing Transition Assistance Program/Disabled Transition Assistance Program (TAP/DTAP), by improving the process by which military personnel who are being demobilized or discharged receive medical examinations and mental health assessments, and by ensuring that military and veterans service organizations and state departments of veterans affairs are able to play an active role in assisting military personnel with the difficult decisions that are often involved in the process of discharging or demobilizing.

Under current law, the Department of Defense, together with the Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Labor, provide pre-separation counseling for military personnel who are preparing to leave the Armed Forces. This counseling provides servicemembers with valuable information about benefits that they have earned through their service to our country such as education benefits through the GI Bill and health care and other benefits through the VA. Personnel also learn about programs such as Troops to Teachers and have access to employment assistance for themselves and, where appropriate, their spouses.

My bill would ensure that National Guard and Reserve personnel who are on active duty are able to participate in this important counseling prior to being demobilized. In addition, my bill would require state- based follow-up within 180 days of demobilization to give newly demobilized personnel the opportunity to follow up on any questions or concerns that they may have during a regular unit training period. Currently, most of the responsibility for getting information about benefits and programs falls on the military personnel. The Department of Defense should make every effort to ensure that all members participate in this important program, and that is what my bill would do.

In its recent report on transition services, GAO found that ``[d]uring their rapid demobilization, the Reserve and National Guard members may not receive all the information on possible benefits to which they are entitled. Notably, certain education benefits and medical coverage require servicemembers to apply while they are still on active duty. However, even after being briefed, some Reserve and National Guard members were not aware of the time frames within which they needed to act to secure certain benefits before returning home. In addition, most members of the Reserves and National Guard did not have the opportunity to attend an employment workshop during demobilization.''

In response to these findings, GAO recommended that ``DoD, in conjunction with DoL and the VA, determine what demobilizing Reserve and National Guard members need to make a smooth transition and explore options to enhance their participation in TAP.'' GAO also recommended that ``VA take steps to determine the level of participation in DTAP to ensure those who may have especially complex needs are being served.''

In addition to ensuring that all discharging and demobilizing military personnel are able to participate in TAP/DTAP, my bill would help to improve the uniformity of services provided to personnel by directing the Secretary of Defense to ensure that consistent transition briefings occur across the services and at all demobilization/discharge locations. In its report, GAO noted that ``[t]he delivery of TAP may vary in terms of the amount of personal attention participants receive, the length of the components, and the instructional methods used.'' We should make every effort to ensure that those who have put themselves in harm's way on our behalf have access to the same transition services no matter their discharge/demobilization location or the branch of the Armed Forces in which they serve.

My bill would also ensure, consistent with GAO's recommendation, that there are programs that are directed to the specific needs of active duty and National Guard and Reserve personnel. And my bill includes a provision to ensure that personnel who are on the temporary disability retired list and

who are being retired or discharged from alternate locations will have access to transition services at a location that is reasonably convenient to them.

In addition, my bill would enhance the information that is presented to members by requiring that pre-separation counseling include the provision of information regarding certification and licensing requirements in civilian occupations and information on identifying military occupations that have civilian counterparts, information concerning veterans small business ownership and entrepreneurship programs offered by the Federal Government, information concerning employment and reemployment rights and veterans preference in Federal employment and Federal procurement opportunities, information concerning homelessness and housing counseling assistance, and a description of the health care and other benefits to which the member may be entitled under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs including a referral (to be provided with the assistance of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs) for a VA medical and pension examination, as appropriate.

Participation in pre-separation counseling through a TAP/DTAP program is a valuable tool for personnel as they transition back to civilian life. My bill is in no way intended to lengthen the time that military personnel spend away from their families or to provide them with information that is not relevant to their civilian lives or that they otherwise do not need. In order to ensure that this information remains a valuable tool and does not become a burden to demobilizing members of the National Guard and Reserve who experience multiple deployments for active duty assignments, my bill clarifies that participation in the Department of Labor's transitional services employment program will not be required if a member has previously participated in the program or if a member will be returning to school or to a position of employment.

My bill would also require the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to submit a plan to Congress for increasing access to the joint DoD-VA Benefits Delivery at Discharge program, which assists personnel in applying for VA disability benefits before they are discharged from the military. This very successful program has helped to cut the red tape and to speed the processing time for many veterans who are entitled to VA disability benefits.

In addition to the uneven provision of transition services, I have long been concerned about the immediate and long-term health effects that military deployments have on our men and women in uniform. I regret that, too often, the burden of responsibility for proving that a condition is related to military service falls on the personnel themselves. Our men and women in uniform deserve the benefit of the doubt, and should not have to fight the Department of Defense or the VA for benefits that they have earned through their service to our nation.

Since coming to the Senate in 1993, I have worked to focus attention on the health effects that are being experienced by military personnel who served in the Persian Gulf War. More than ten years after the end of the Gulf War, we still don't know why so many veterans of that conflict are experiencing medical problems that have become known as Gulf War Syndrome. Military personnel who are currently deployed to the Persian Gulf region face many of the same conditions that existed in the early 1990s. I have repeatedly pressed the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to work to unlock the mystery of this illness and to study the role that exposure to depleted uranium may play in this condition. We owe it to these personnel to find these answers, and to ensure that those who are currently serving in the Persian Gulf region are adequately protected from the many possible causes of Gulf War Syndrome.

Part of the process of protecting the health of our men and women in uniform is to ensure that the Department of Defense carries out its responsibility to provide post-deployment physicals for military personnel. I am deeply concerned about stories of personnel who are experiencing long delays as they wait for their post-deployment physicals and who end up choosing not to have these important physicals in order to get home to their families that much sooner. I am equally concerned about reports that some personnel who did not receive such a physical--either by their own choice or because such a physical was not available--are now having trouble as they apply for benefits for a service-connected condition.

I firmly believe, as do the military and veterans groups that support my bill, that our men and women in uniform are entitled to a prompt, high quality physical examination as part of the demobilization process. These individuals have voluntarily put themselves into harm's way for our benefit. We should ensure that the Department of Defense makes every effort to determine whether they have experienced, or could experience, any health effects as a result of their service.

In light of concerns raised by many that each service and each installation uses a different process for demobilization physicals, my bill would require the Secretary of Defense to set minimum standards for these important medical examinations and to ensure that these standards are applied uniformly at all installations and by all branches of the Armed Forces. In addition, to ensure that all personnel receive these important exams, my bill stipulates that the exam may not be waived by the Department or by individual personnel.

My bill also would strengthen current law by ensuring that these medical examinations also include a mental health assessment. Our men and women in uniform serve in difficult circumstances far from home, and too many of them witness or experience violence and horrific situations that most of us cannot even begin to imagine. I have heard concerns that these brave men and women, many of whom are just out of high school or college when they sign up, may suffer long-term physical and mental fallout from their experiences and may feel reluctant to seek counseling or other assistance to deal with their experiences.

My bill would improve mental health services for demobilizing military personnel by requiring that the content and standards for the mental health screening and assessment that are developed by the Secretary include content and standards for screening acute and delayed onset post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and, specifically, questions to identify stressors experienced by military personnel that have the potential to lead to PTSD. These efforts should build on--not replace--the mental health questions that the Pentagon is already using as part of its post-deployment health screening process.

Some Wisconsinites have told me that they are concerned that the multiple deployments of our National Guard and Reserve could lead to chronic PTSD, which could have its roots in an experience from a previous deployment and which could come to the surface by a triggering event that is experienced on a current deployment. The same is true for full-time military personnel who have served in a variety of places over their careers.

We can and should do more to ensure that the mental health of our men and women in uniform is a top priority, and that the stigma that is too often attached to seeking assistance is ended. One step in this process is to ensure that personnel who have symptoms of PTSD and related illnesses have access to appropriate clinical services, through DoD, the VA, or a private sector health care provider. To that end, my bill would require that the health care professionals who are assessing demobilizing military personnel provide all personnel who may need follow-up care for a physical or psychological condition with information on appropriate resources through DoD or the VA and in the private sector that these personnel may use to access additional follow-up care if they so choose.

I commend the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs for issuing in March 2005 a memorandum to the Assistant Secretaries for the Army, Navy, and Air Force directing them to extend the Pentagon's current post-deployment health assessment process to include a reassessment of ``global health with a specific emphasis on mental health'' to occur three to six months post-deployment. At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee's Personnel Subcommittee earlier

this year, the Assistant Secretary stated that the services were in the process of implementing a program that would include a ``screening procedure with a questionnaire and a face-to-face interaction at about three months'' post-deployment. He also noted that the idea for this program came from ``front line people'' and that he ``asked them. . . `do you think we should make it mandatory?' and the answer was: yes.'' This sentiment makes it even more important that the initial post- deployment mental health assessment be strengthened and that it be mandatory as well so that health care professionals have a benchmark against which to measure the results of the follow-up screening process.

In order to gain a better understanding of existing programs, my bill requires the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to report to Congress on the services provided to current and former members of the Armed Forces who experience PTSD and related conditions. This report will include an analysis of the number of persons treated, the types of interventions, and the programs that are in place for each branch of the Armed Forces to identify and treat cases of PTSD and related conditions.

In addition, in order to ensure that all military personnel who are eligible for medical benefits from the VA learn about and receive these benefits, my bill would require that, as part of the demobilization process, assistance be provided to eligible members to enroll in the VA health care system.

My bill would also make improvements to the DoD demobilization and discharge processes by ensuring that members of military and veterans service organizations (MSOs and VSOs) are able to counsel personnel on options for benefits and other important questions. The demobilization and discharge process presents our servicemembers with a sometimes confusing and often overwhelming amount of information and paperwork that must be digested and sometimes signed in a very short period of time. My bill would authorize a ``veteran to veteran'' counseling program that will give military personnel the opportunity to speak with fellow veterans who have been through this process and who have been accredited to represent veterans in VA proceeding by the VA. These veterans can offer important advice about benefits and other choices that military personnel have to make as they are being discharged or demobilized.

Under current law, the Secretary of Defense may make use of the services provided by MSOs and VSOs as part of the transition process. But these groups tell me that they are not always allowed access to transition briefings that are conducted for our personnel. In order to help facilitate the new veteran-to-veteran program, my legislation would require the Secretary to ensure that representatives of MSOs, VSOs, and state departments of veterans affairs, are invited to participate in all transition and Benefits Delivery at Discharge programs. In addition, my legislation requires that these dedicated veterans, who give so much of their time and of themselves to serving their fellow veterans and their families, are able to gain access to military installations, military hospitals, and VA hospitals in order to provide this important service. By and large, these groups are able to speak with our military personnel at hospitals and other facilities. But I am disturbed by reports that representatives of some of these groups were having a hard time gaining access to these facilities in order to visit with our troops. For that reason, I have included this access requirement in my bill.

I want to stress that my bill in no way requires military personnel to speak with members of MSOs or VSOs if they do not wish to do so. It merely ensures that our men and women in uniform have this option.

I am pleased that this legislation is supported by a wide range of groups that are dedicated to serving our men and women in uniform and veterans and their families. These groups include: the American Legion; the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States; the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans; the Paralyzed Veterans of America; the Reserve Officers Association; the Veterans of Foreign Wars; the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin National Guard; the American Legion, Department of Wisconsin; Disabled American Veterans, Department of Wisconsin; the Wisconsin Paralyzed Veterans of America; the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department of Wisconsin; and the Wisconsin State Council, Vietnam Veterans of America.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation that will help to ensure that all of our veterans know about Federal benefits to which they may be entitled by improving outreach programs conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I am please to be joined in this effort by the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln.

Five years ago, the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs (WDVA) launched a Statewide program called ``I Owe You,'' which encourages veterans to apply, or to re-apply, for benefits that they earned from their service to our country in the Armed Forces.

As part of this program, WDVA has sponsored 20 events around Wisconsin called ``Supermarkets of Veterans Benefits'' at which veterans can begin the process of learning whether they qualify for federal benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Information about additional benefits through WDVA is also provided. These events, which are based on a similar program in Georgia, supplement the work of Wisconsin's County Veterans Service Officers and veterans service organizations by helping our veterans to reconnect with the VA and to learn more about services and benefits for which they may be eligible.

More than 18,650 veterans and their families have attended the supermarkets, which include information booths with representatives from WDVA, VA, and veterans service organizations, as well as a variety of Federal, State, and local agencies. I am proud to have had members of my staff speak with veterans and their families at a number of these events. These events have helped veterans and their families to learn about numerous topics, including health care, how to file a disability claim, and pre-registration for internment in veterans cemeteries. According to WDVA, this program has helped Wisconsin to receive approximately $250 million in additional VA funding and benefits for our veterans each year.

The Institute for Government Innovation at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government recognized the ``I Owe You'' program by naming it a semi-finalist for the 2002 Innovations in American Government Award. The program was featured in the March/April 2003 issue of Disabled American Veterans Magazine. And in August 2003, the Midwestern Legislative Conference of the Council of State Governments named the program a finalist in its 2003 Innovations in American Government Awards Program.

The State of Wisconsin is performing a service that is clearly the obligation of the VA. These are federal benefits that we owe to our veterans and it is the federal government's responsibility to make sure that they receive them. The VA has a statutory obligation to perform outreach, and current budget pressures should not be used as an excuse to halt or reduce these efforts.

The legislation that I am introducing today was spurred by the overwhelming response to the WDVA's ``I Owe You'' program and the supermarkets of veterans benefits. If more than 18,000 Wisconsin veterans want to make sure they know about all the benefits that are owed to them, there must be many more veterans around our country who deserve to be told about the benefits they have earned. We can and should do better for our veterans, who selflessly served our country and protected the freedoms that we all cherish. And it is important to address gaps in the VA's outreach program as we welcome home and prepare to enroll into the VA system the tens of thousands of dedicated military personnel who are serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the globe.

In order to help to facilitate consistent implementation of VA's outreach responsibilities around the country, my bill would create a statutory definition of the term ``outreach.''

My bill also would help to improve outreach activities performed by the VA in three ways. First, it would create separate funding line items for outreach activities within the budgets of the VA and its agencies (the Veterans Health Administration, the Veterans Benefits Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration). Currently funding for outreach is taken from the general operating expenses for these agencies. These important programs should have a dedicated funding source instead of being forced to compete for scarce funding with other crucial VA programs.

I have long supported efforts to adequately fund VA programs. We can and should do more to provide the funding necessary to ensure that our brave veterans are getting the health care and other benefits that they have earned in a timely manner and without having to travel long distances or wait more than a year to see a doctor or to have a claim processed.

Secondly, the bill would create an intra-agency structure to require the Office of the Secretary, the Office of Public Affairs, the VBA, the VHA, and the NCA to coordinate outreach activities. By working more closely together, the VA components would be able to consolidate their efforts, share proven outreach mechanisms, and avoid duplication of effort that could waste scarce funding.

Finally, the bill would ensure that the VA can enter into cooperative agreements with state departments of veterans affairs regarding outreach activities and would give the VA grant-making authority to award funds to State Departments of Veterans Affairs for outreach activities such as the WDVA's ``I Owe You Program.'' Grants that are awarded to state departments under this program could be used to enhance outreach activities and to improve activities relating to veterans claims processing, which is a key component of the VA benefits process. State departments that receive grants

under this program may choose to award portions of their grants to local governments, other public entities, or private or non-profit organizations that engage in veterans outreach activities. I want to be clear that it is not my intention that the funding for these grants be taken from existing VA programs.

I am pleased that this bill has the support of a number of national and Wisconsin organizations that are committed to improving the lives of our nation's veterans, including: Disabled American Veterans; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Vietnam Veterans of America; the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers; the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin Association of County Veterans Service Officers; the American Legion, Department of Wisconsin; the American Legion Auxiliary, Department of Wisconsin; Disabled American Veterans, Department of Wisconsin; the Wisconsin Paralyzed Veterans of America; the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department of Wisconsin; and the Wisconsin State Council, Vietnam Veterans of America.

I hope that my colleagues will support this effort to ensure that our veterans know about the benefits for which they may be eligible as a result of their service to our country. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Wartime Treatment Study Act. This bill would create two fact-finding commissions: one commission to review the U.S. government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World War II, and another commission to review the U.S. government's treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War II. This bill is long overdue.

I am very pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senators Grassley, Kennedy, Lieberman, Corzine and Wyden, have joined me as cosponsors of this important bill. I thank them for their support.

The victory of America and its allies in the Second World War was a triumph for freedom, justice, and human rights. The courage displayed by so many Americans, of all ethnic origins, should be a source of great pride for all Americans.

But, as so many brave Americans fought against enemies in Europe and the Pacific, the U.S. government was curtailing the freedom of people here at home. While, it is, of course, the right of every nation to protect itself during wartime, the U.S. government must respect the basic freedoms for which so many Americans have given their lives to defend. War tests our principles and our values. And as our nation's recent experience has shown, it is during times of war and conflict, when our fears are high and our principles are tested most, that we must be even more vigilant to guard against violations of the Constitution or of basic freedoms.

Many Americans are aware of the fact that, during World War II, under the authority of Executive Order 9066, our government forced more than 100,000 ethnic Japanese from their homes into internment camps. Japanese Americans were forced to leave their homes, their livelihoods, and their communities and were held behind barbed wire and military guard by their own government. Through the work of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, created by Congress in 1980, this shameful event finally received the official acknowledgement and condemnation it deserved. Under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, people of Japanese ancestry who were subjected to relocation or internment later received an apology and reparations on behalf of the people of the United States.

While I commend our government for finally recognizing and apologizing for the mistreatment of Japanese Americans during World War II, I believe that it is time that the government also acknowledge the mistreatment experienced by many German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans, as well as Jewish refugees.

The Wartime Treatment Study Act would create two independent, fact- finding commissions to review this unfortunate history, so that Americans can understand why it happened and work to ensure that it never happens again. One commission will review the treatment by the U.S. government of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans, as well as European Latin Americans, during World War II.

I believe that most Americans are unaware that, as was the case with Japanese Americans, approximately 11,000 ethnic Germans, 3,200 ethnic Italians, and scores of Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians or other European Americans living in America were taken from their homes and placed in internment camps during World War II. We must learn from our history and explore why we turned on our fellow Americans and failed to protect basic freedoms.

A second commission created by this bill will review the treatment by the U.S. government of Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi persecution and genocide. We must review the facts and determine how our restrictive immigration policies failed to provide adequate safe harbor to Jewish refugees fleeing the persecution of Nazi Germany. The United States turned away thousands of refugees, delivering many refugees to their deaths at the hands of the Nazi regime.

As I mentioned earlier, there has been a measure of justice for Japanese Americans who were denied their liberty and property. It is now time for the U.S. government to complete an accounting of this period in our nation's history. It is time to create independent, fact- finding commissions to conduct a full and through review of the treatment of all European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees during World War II.

Up to this point, there has been no justice for the thousands of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans who were branded ``enemy aliens'' and then taken from their homes, subjected to curfews, limited in their travel, deprived of their personal property, and, in the worst cases, placed in internment camps.

There has been no justice for Latin Americans of European descent who were shipped to the United States and sometimes repatriated or deported to hostile, war-torn European Axis powers, often in exchange for Americans being held in those countries.

Finally, there has been no justice for the thousands of Jews, like those aboard the German vessel the St. Louis, who sought refuge from hostile Nazi treatment but were callously turned away at America's shores.

Although the injustices to European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees occurred fifty years ago, it is never too late for Americans to learn from these tragedies. We should never allow this part of our Nation's history to repeat itself. And, while we should be proud of our Nation's triumph in World War II, we should not let that justifiable pride blind us to the treatment of some Americans by their own government.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Wartime Treatment Study Act. It is time for a full accounting of this tragic chapter in our nation's history.

I ask that the full text of the Wartime Treatment Study Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Craig and Senator Inhofe, who cosponsored an earlier version of the bill in the 108th Congress, and who are original sponsors of this year's legislation. Our bill takes the lead in encouraging a culture of cooperation among all levels of immigration law enforcement--Federal, State, and local--it seeks to build an immigration law enforcement system that is inclusive of all law enforcement officers, has adequate detention bedspace, uses unified databases for information sharing from one level of law enforcement to another, and has adequate detention bedspace.

These elements are a necessary foundation for any future comprehensive immigration reform and I am pleased that the need for this foundation was recently recognized by Senators Kyl and Cornyn in the release of the enforcement principles of the immigration bill they are currently drafting. Changes in substantive immigration law are surely needed, but unless an effective enforcement mechanism is included, the new rules will also collapse under a rising tide of illegality.

More than 15 years of service as a U.S. Attorney in Alabama and then as Alabama's Attorney General--as well as my current role on the Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship Subcommittee--have taught me that the involvement of State and local law enforcement will be a critical part of any new and successful immigration enforcement scheme. Establishing an effective partnership between the 700,000 State and local law enforcement officers who patrol our streets every day and the small number of Federal immigration officers will be a test of our Nation's will to establish an effective and enforceable legal scheme for immigration.

I care very deeply about the ability of State and local law enforcement to voluntarily aid the federal government in the enforcement of immigration law. As a result, I also care very deeply about tearing down barriers to that voluntary assistance. The need for this voluntary assistance has only grown stronger over the last year and a half, since I first introduced this legislation in the Senate. Over the course of that time we have heard about the need to reform our immigration laws to create a system that is as enforceable as it is generous and workable. Creation of an enforceable immigration system will undoubtedly require increased manpower, streamlined information sharing, and bedspace to hold those we apprehend.

This legislation targets all three of these essential enforcement components, and will go a long way toward fixing our broken immigration enforcement system--the system that is currently allowing people to remain in the U.S. for indefinite time periods, regardless of how they came here.

Let me be clear, this bill is not about the commandeering of State and local police forces or about forcing them to dedicate resources toward immigration law enforcement when they have other priorities, it is simply about welcoming their assistance in the realm of immigration law enforcement if they choose to give it.

We know that Americans strongly value our heritage as a Nation of immigrants. Americans openly welcome legal immigrants and new citizens with character, ability, decency, and a strong work ethic. However, it is also clear that Americans do not feel the same way about illegal immigration. The fact is that a large majority of Americans feel that State and local governments should be aiding the Federal Government in stopping illegal immigration.

A RoperASW poll published in March of 2003 titled ``Americans Talk About Illegal Immigration'' found that 88 percent of Americans agree, and 68 percent ``strongly'' agree, that Congress should require state and local government agencies to notify the INS, now ICE, and their local law enforcement when they determine that a person is here illegally or has presented fraudulent documentation. Additionally, 85 percent of Americans agree, and 62 percent ``strongly'' agree that Congress should pass a law requiring State and local governments and law enforcement agencies, to apprehend and turn over to the INS illegal immigrants with whom they come in contact.

Those numbers speak volumes about the desires of the American population. It is important to note that these responses were collected in response to questions about requiring State and local immigration enforcement action. It is very likely that a poll on this bill, a bill that is about voluntary State and local action, would yield even stronger support.

America's strength is based on its commitment to the rule of law. Inscribed on the front of the Supreme Court Building just down the street are the words, ``Equal Justice Under Law.''

In the world of immigration laws, the current facade of enforcement that holds no real consequences for law breakers is both dangerous and irresponsible. If the only real consequence of coming to this country illegally is a social label, then our immigration laws are but a brightly painted sepulcher full of dead bones, for it is impossible to be a nation governed by the rule of law, if our laws have no real effect on the lives of the people they govern.

Our illegal alien population was at a record high two years ago and the numbers continue to climb. The lack of immigration enforcement in our country's interior has resulted in 8-12 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. with another estimated 800,000 illegal aliens joining them every year--that is on top of the more than 1 million that legally immigrate each year. These numbers make it easy for criminal aliens and absconders to disappear inside our borders.

Of the 8-10 million illegal aliens present today, the Department of Homeland Security has estimated that 450,000 are ``alien absconders''-- people that have been issued final deportation orders but have not shown up for their hearings. An estimated 40,000 absconders join that number every year.

An estimated 86,000 of them are criminal illegal aliens--people convicted of crimes they committed in the U.S. who should have been deported, but have slipped through the cracks and are still here.

The next number is perhaps the most concerning--3,000 of the ``alien absconders'' within our borders are from one of the countries that the State Department has designated to be a ``state sponsor of terrorism.''

The number of illegal aliens outweighs the number of federal agents whose job it is to find them within our borders by 5,000 to 1. The enforcement arm of the old INS, now called The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, has just over 2,000 interior agents inside the borders. Leaving the job of interior immigration enforcement solely to them will guarantee failure. If each interior agent investigated, arrested, prosecuted and deported an illegal alien every day, it would take almost 14 years to deport the current illegal alien population.

State and local police, a force 700,000 strong, are the eyes and ears of our communities. They are sworn to uphold the law. They police our streets and neighborhoods every day. Their role is absolutely critical to the success of our immigration system.

For that critical role to be effective, a few very important things need to happen: 1. State and local law enforcement officers need clear authority to voluntarily act; 2. the NCIC Immigration Violators File needs to contain all critical immigration information so that officers have quick roadside access to critical immigration information; 3. Federal immigration officials have to take custody of illegal aliens apprehended by State officers, they can not continue to ignore State and local requests for assistance; 4. the Institutional Removal Program has to be expanded so that all criminal aliens are detained after their State sentences until deportation, instead of being released back into the community just to be searched for by Federal officials at a later date; and 5. critically needed Federal bed space has to be given to DHS so that the practice of ``catch and release'' can be ended and effective removal can begin.

The Homeland Security Enhancement Act that Senator Craig, Senator Inhofe, and I are introducing today will do all of those things.

Let me tell you about a few of the problems in immigration enforcement that started my interest in this area and prompted me to author this bill, to push for the hearing on April 22 of 2004 in the Senate Judiciary Committee titled ``State and Local Authority to Enforce Immigration Law: Evaluating a Unified Approach for Stopping Terrorists'', and to author a law review article in the April 2005 issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review titled ``The Growing Role for State and Local Law Enforcement in the Real of Immigration Law.''

A few years ago, police chiefs and sheriffs in Alabama began to tell me that they had been shut out of the immigration enforcement system and that they felt powerless to do anything about Alabama's growing illegal immigrant population.

As I went to town hall meetings and conferences with police, I heard the same story-- ``When we come across illegal aliens in our normal course of duty, we have given up calling because the INS tells us we have to have 15 or more illegal aliens in custody or they will not even come pick them up.''

Even worse, Alabama police were routinely told that the aliens could not be detained until the INS could manage to send someone. They were told they had to just let them go! They were being told this, even though I believed that the legal authority of State and local officers to voluntarily act on violations of immigration law was pretty clear. If there is any doubt that State and local officers have this authority, Congress needs to remove that doubt which is exactly what this bill will do.

Only two U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal have expressly ruled on State and local law enforcement authority to make an arrest on an immigration law violation. In 1983, the Ninth Circuit, while not mentioning a preexisting general authority, held that nothing in Federal law precludes the police form enforcing the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983).

The Tenth Circuit has reviewed this question on several occasions, concluding squarely that a ``state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.'' United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984). As the Tenth Circuit has described it, there is a ``preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of Federal law, including immigration laws.'' United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295 (10th Cir. 1999).

Again, in 2001, the Tenth Circuit reiterated that ``state and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions 'to investigate and make arrests for violations of Federal law, including immigration laws.''' United States v. Santana- Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295).

None of these Tenth Circuit holdings drew any distinction between criminal violations of the INA and civil provisions of the INA that render an alien deportable. It appears that the Ninth Circuit started the confusion regarding the distinction between civil and criminal violations in Gonzales v. City of Peoria by asserting in dicta that the civil provisions of the INA are a persuasive regulatory scheme, and therefore only the Federal Government has the power to enforce civil violations. See Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983).

This confusion was, to some extent, fostered by an erroneous 1996 opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel, OLC of the Department of Justice, the relevant part of which has since been withdrawn by OLC.

Why was the Federal agency responsible for interior immigration enforcement telling my police chiefs in Alabama to let illegal aliens go free?

To be fair, ICE still does not have the manpower or detention space to take custody and detain all illegal aliens. With less than 20,000 appropriated detention beds, ICE tells us over and over again that they do not have the bed space to detain all the illegal aliens that they apprehend; instead, they are forced to give first priority to detaining the worst of the worst individuals such as convicted felon aliens.

It is shocking to me that even though we know that detention is a key element of effective removal, we do not even detain all illegal aliens that have been convicted of crimes for removal. Last February, in a report titled ``The Immigration and Naturalization Service's Removal of Aliens Issued Final Orders'' the Department of Justice Inspector General found that 87 percent of those not detained before removal never get deported. Even in high risk categories, the IG found that only fractions of non-detained violators are ever removed-- 35 percent of those with criminal records and 6 percent of those from ``state sponsors of terrorism.'' These percentages have not changed since 1996, when the last IG report issued on the ability to remove aliens found that 89 percent of aliens with final deportation orders that are not detained are never removed.

Just this month, during a joint hearing of the Judiciary Committee Immigration and Terrorism Subcommittees titled ``The Southern Border in Crisis: Resources and Strategies to Improve National Security'' we learned that in some jurisdictions such--as Harlingen Texas--`` no show'' rates for immigration hearings are as high as 98 percent. Those numbers speak for themselves about our efficiency in the realm of immigration enforcement. The American people deserve better, they deserve to know that our laws will be enforced instead of ignored without consequence.

But we can not lay all the blame on DHS--they can only detain illegal aliens that they have space to detain. We know that DHS is using all of the bed space that they have and that it is not enough they consistently tell us that they are releasing people that should be detained because there is no more room. The Homeland Security Enhancement Act would add critical bed space DHS needs to fulfill its mission of interior enforcement.

The third problem that was brought to my attention and motivated my desire to introduce this bill, is the inadequate way we share immigration information with State and local police. We have databases full of information on criminal aliens and aliens with final deportation orders, but that information is not directly available to State and local police. They have to make a special second inquiry to the immigration center in Vermont just to see if an illegal alien is a wanted by DHS.

The Hart Rhudman Report, ``America Still Unprepared--America Still In Danger,'' found that one problem America still confronts is ``700,000 local and State police officials continue to operate in a virtual intelligence vacuum, without access to terrorist

watchlists.'' The first recommendation of the report was to ``tap the eyes and ears of local and State law enforcement officers in preventing attacks.'' On page 19, the report specifically cited the burden of finding hundreds of thousands of fugitive aliens living among the population of more than 8.5 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. and suggested that the burden could and should be shared with 700,000 local, county, and State law enforcement officers if they could be brought out of the information void.

Without easy access to immigration database information, and with ICE unwilling to come and identify every suspected illegal alien, State and local police can not quickly and accurately identify who they have detained and who they will be releasing back into the community if they follow ICE's instruction to ``just let them go.''

State and local police are accustomed to checking for criminal information in the NCIC, National Crime Information Center, database, which is maintained by the FBI. They can, and routinely do, access the NCIC on the roadside when they pull over a car or stop a suspect. An NCIC check, which takes just minutes, includes information about individuals with outstanding warrants. Even fugitives that use false identification can be identified on the roadside through use of the NCIC when, as is often the case, a police officer has access to an instant fingerprint scanner in his car.

Separate from the NCIC, ICE operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which makes immigration information available to State and local police, but requires a second additional check after NCIC that most State and local police either don't know about or don't have the time to perform.

The ability of the NCIC to convey immigration information to State and local police is not being fully utilized. To date, the Immigration Violators File of the NCIC contains just over 150,000 entries and only 39,000 of those are alien absconders. This file should be greatly and rapidly expanded. At the very least, the NCIC should contain information on all illegal aliens who have received final orders of departure, all illegal aliens who have signed voluntary departure agreements, and all aliens who have had their visas revoked. In truth, the NCIC should contain information on all violations of immigration law.

If State and local police are not accessing the immigration information we have worked hard to make available, we must find a way to get the information to them, through systems they are used to using. Our bill will get information to them through the system they are already using--the NCIC.

Our bill will ensure that when an NCIC roadside check is done on an individual pulled over for speeding, police will know immediately if the individual has already been ordered to leave the country, has signed a legal document promising to leave, has overstayed their visa, or has had their visa revoked.

Understanding the value of getting immigration information to State and local police comes from understanding that they are the ones who will come into contact with the dangerous illegal aliens on a day-to- day basis.

Three 9/11 hijackers were stopped by State and local police in the weeks proceeding 9/11. Hijacker Mohammad Atta, believed to have piloted American Airlines Flight 77 into the World Trade Center's north tower, was stopped twice by police in Florida. Hijacker Ziad S. Jarrah was stopped for speeding by Maryland State Police two days before 9/11. And, Hani Hanjour, who was on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon, was stopped for speeding by police in Arlington, Virginia. Local police can be our most powerful tool in the war against terrorism.

The D.C. Snipers were caught because of the fingerprint collected by local police. John Lee Malvo was identified when the fingerprint collected from a magazine at the scene of the liquor store murder and robbery in Montgomery, Alabama matched with the fingerprints collected by INS agents in Washington State. Had both law enforcement entities not done their job by taking prints, it is possible that the identity of John Lee Malvo could have been a mystery for weeks longer.

In New York a 42-year-old woman sitting on a park bench with her boyfriend was dragged away and gang-raped by five deportable illegal immigrants. Although 4 of the 5 had State criminal convictions and 2 had served jail time, the INS claims they were never told about them-- thus, they were not deported as the law requires.

56 illegal aliens were caught by State and local police, and convicted of molestation and child abuse, long before ICE's ``Operation Predator'' found them living in New York and Northern New Jersey long after they should have been deported. Of the 56 arrested, one had raped his 10-year-old niece; another had sexually assaulted a 6-year-old boy; one had raped his 7-year-old niece; and another had sexually assaulted a 2-year-old.

The 9/11 hijacker cases, the D.C. sniper cases, and a multitude of criminal alien cases clearly illustrate that our State and local police are the front lines of combating alien crime. To leave them out of the enforcement system, as we do now, eliminates our most effective weapon against criminal and terrorist aliens.

Many advocacy groups have vocally opposed the idea of State and local immigration law enforcement over the course of the last year. They would prefer that Congress not clarify this enforcement authority and that we leave State and local officers in the dark.

Such groups contend that if immigration enforcement functions are performed by anyone other than Federal law enforcement officials, at least three negative consequences will ensue. First, they argue that State and local law enforcement entities will be handed an unfunded mandate and will be forced to enforce immigration law violations against their will and at their expense. Second, they argue that immigrant communities, and the victims and witnesses that live within them, will abandon their trust of, and cooperative partnership with, State and local law enforcement. And third, they argue that State and local law enforcement officers will abuse their inherent enforcement authority to engage in racial profiling, harassment, and discrimination.

By making these claims, advocacy groups seek to maintain the ineffective status quo for enforcement by local officers and thwart the possibility of an effective enforcement partnership between the Federal Government and the States.

The assertions of these advocacy groups are more myth than reality. The first assertion is that the Federal Government is trying to burden State and local governments with an unfunded mandate. Every police and sheriff's department across the country must make choices every day regarding their enforcement priorities and resources. Certainly, their legal authority and law enforcement goals are not served by being shut out of immigration law enforcement. It is a curious argument to say that local police are helped by being denied their lawful powers to voluntarily aid Federal immigration authorities. They should not be forced to ignore laws being broken in their presence and in their communities.

The second myth that anti-local enforcement advocates would have policymakers believe is twofold: that a current cooperative partnership exists between local police and immigrant communities, and that immigration enforcement will cause immigrant victims and witnesses of crimes to abandon these cooperative partnerships. One advocacy group, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, argues: ``These combined measures will ensure that more immigrants will avoid contact with law enforcement, putting entire communities at risk. For instance, immigrant victims of crime will hesitate to report the crimes to the police if they fear adverse immigration consequences from their contact with the officials.'' Again, the argument fails because State and local police retain their independent power to make prosecution choices. They are not required to report illegal alien victims or witnesses to Federal authorities or to investigate crimes they do not want to investigate. To make sure that this is understood, the authors of this bill have agreed to add language clarifying that nothing in the bill requires State and local officers to report crime victims or witnesses to Federal immigration authorities.

Perhaps the most egregious assertion made by opponents of effective enforcement is the allegation that State and local law enforcement officers will use their inherent enforcement authority as a license to engage in racial profiling, harassment, and discrimination. Specifically, the National Council of La Raza strongly opposes State and local law enforcement participation because it claims such involvement is ``likely to result in increased racial profiling, police misconduct, and civil rights violations.'' This argument is curious because it would effectively grant more protection to non-citizens here illegally than to citizens, who are subject to arrest by State and Federal law enforcement officers for violations of Federal law. It is curious logic to say that we trust our police to enforce laws against citizens but not against non-citizens here illegally. State and local police are trained to protect the civil rights of all types of suspects and defendants and they do so every day in this country. In Alabama, State troopers receive annual training on racial profiling. In New York, the NYC Police Department Operations Order #11 strictly prohibits racial profiling in law enforcement actions. If Alabama and New York are consistent in how they instruct and train their State and local police with regards to racial profiling, it is safe to assume that the rest of the Nation is as well.

Under this bill, State and local police will have to respect the civil rights of illegal aliens the same way they respect the civil rights of all people against whom they enforce the law. State and local police will continue to be held responsible for violations of civil rights; this bill does not change that fact.

The opposition will say that this bill is expensive; that it costs too much. It is always expensive to enforce the law. I do not think this bill is overly expensive. We have made it as cost affordable as we can by electing to use resources already available to us--facilities closed down under the Defense Base Closure Realignment Act of 1990 and law enforcement officers across America already out on our streets doing their jobs. Law enforcement is not an area where it pays to pinch pennies. In immigration enforcement, it costs us too much not to enforce the law. It is time that Congress take responsibility for providing DHS with the resources they need to do the job we have given them.

When it comes to immigration enforcement in America, the rule of law is not prevailing. If we are serious about securing the homeland, we simply must get serious about immigration enforcement.

It is time to talk about the big picture--time to be honest about what it will really take to fix our broken immigration system. In most cases, we don't need tougher immigration laws, we just need to utilize our existing resources and use some new resources to enforce the laws we already have.

If State and local police are confused about their authority to enforce immigration laws, that authority needs to be clarified. This bill will do that. If State and local police cannot access immigration background information on individuals quickly enough, we should change that. This bill makes that information more accessible through expanding use of the NCIC. If DHS is not taking custody of illegal aliens being apprehended by State and local police, we need to make it possible for them to do so. This bill will address the practice of ``catching and releasing'' illegal aliens. If we do not have enough detention space to hold people that break the law, then we need more detention space. This bill gives DHS 50 percent more bedspace for immigration enforcement. If illegal aliens are being released back into the community after their prison sentences instead of being deported, we need to fix the system that releases them. This bill will extend the Institutional Removal Program to ensure that custody is transferred from the State prison to Federal officials at the end of the alien's prison sentence.

Once again I would like to thank Senator Craig and Senator Inhofe for joining with me to introduce this legislation, and I would like to thank Congressman Norwood for introducing companion legislation in the House.

It is imperative that we take critical steps toward regaining control of our borders and that we lay the enforcement foundation for necessary immigration reforms. This bill is a critical step in the right direction. I encourage my colleagues to study this bill and join us in working to pass the Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 2005.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the presence and use of small electronic calculators be permitted in this Chamber during consideration of S. 1932.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time spent in quorum calls requested during consideration of S. 1932 be equally divided between the majority and minority managers of the bill.

Mr. President, at this point we turn to what is one of the more significant pieces of legislation to come before the Senate and the Congress during this session of the Senate. We always hear that. Whatever legislation comes to the Congress, they always say, Well, it is a significant piece of legislation--and it is. There is very little that he we do that cannot have that identification. But this one is a little unique because for the first time in 8 years under Republican leadership, this Congress will, if we are successful in passing this bill, conferencing it and then sending it on to the President, reduce the deficit of the United States through addressing what is the most significant item of spending in the Federal budget--mandatory programs. This is a major effort. As I said, it has not occurred in 8 years. The last time it happened was in the mid-1990s, and it has not occurred because people did not want to do it. It did not occur because it is not an easy thing to do. It is not easy to control the rate of the growth of the Federal Government, and it is not easy to control the growth of mandatory entitlement programs which is what this bill does.

So it is an important step in the direction of fiscal responsibility, and it is one which I am very proud to have the opportunity to bring here to the floor as chairman of the Budget Committee.

Let me explain quickly what the problem is so that people will understand the scope and concern of the issue of mandatory spending because it is going to impact not only America today but, more importantly, it is going to affect our children and our children's children if we do not do something positive in the area of trying to control Federal spending on mandatory programs.

Mandatory programs are programs which people have a right to. In other words, if you were in the military and are a veteran, you have entitlement to certain benefits. If you are at a certain income level in this country, you have a right to certain benefits. If you are a student going to college and you meet certain income levels, you have a right to certain types of benefits. If you are a senior citizen in this country today, you have a right to certain benefits under the Medicare Program and the Medicaid Program, depending on your income level, and those payments have to be made.

In other words, mandatory programs are programs where there is no discretion. The Federal Government has to pay out a certain amount of money because the law says that if a person meets a certain set of criteria, then that person has a right to the support of that program.

Mandatory programs used to be a small percentage of the Federal Government, but today they have grown--and this has occurred over the last 20 years, actually in the post-1970 period--to be the largest part of the Federal Government.

This chart reflects that. Back in 1975, mandatory programs represented a very small percentage. They are the orange bar here.

Discretionary programs--let me explain discretionary programs. They are programs which are funded every year. Those are the ones you think of relative to Government, such as national defense, education, cleaning up the environment. That is called a discretionary program. Every year the Government makes a decision, under the appropriations bill process, that we are going to spend this much on foreign aid; we are going this spend this much on defending our country; we are going to spend this much on homeland security; we are going to spend this much on education.

That is a discretionary program. We can change that every year. Nobody has a right to that money. Mandatory programs, as I said, people have a right to the program. So as we see the orange bar, in 1985, it was 45 percent of the Federal Government, discretionary being the balance. So there was an equal split between discretionary and mandatory. But you see that by today's accounting, mandatory programs represent approximately 56 percent of the Federal budget, the largest item in the Federal budget, and they are growing. In fact, this chart shows it rather dramatically. So that by the year 2015, they will be 62 percent of the Federal budget and essentially absorbing most of the Federal spending.

What is the practical implication of that? Well, it means that if we are going to discipline ourselves as a government, we have to be willing to look at mandatory programs. The only way you can look at mandatory programs is through something called the reconciliation process. That is what we have in the Chamber today, a bill which controls the amount of spending the Federal Government does in the mandatory area and therefore reduces the debt if it reduces that spending.

Why is it important to do this? Well, I mentioned the major programs in the mandatory area involve mostly health care and people who are retired: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And as a quirk of fate, there is this population group called the postwar baby boom generation, which is the largest generation in the history of our Government. This group has changed the country in every 10-year period. It has impacted the way the Nation lives. In the 1950s, we had to build a huge number of schools to meet the needs of this generation. In the 1960s, this generation had a huge impact on civil rights and women and, of course, in the Vietnam debate. In 1970s and 1980s and 1990s, this generation has been the most productive generation in the history of our country because it is the largest and also the best educated over that period and as a result has caused our country to obtain huge wealth, and we as a nation have been very prosperous as a result of this generation putting its oars in the water.

But now this generation, the baby boom generation, is moving toward retirement and moving toward retirement rather quickly. By 2008, members of this generation will start to retire, and by 2030 this generation will, for all intents and purposes, be retired. And the effect of this huge generation retiring is it is going to put massive demands on people who are working; in other words, our children, my children, children of the baby boom generation, and their children are going to have to pay taxes to support the retirement benefits of this massive generation.

To try to put it into perspective, in 1950, there were about 16 people working for every 1 person retired. Today, there are about 3\1/ 2\ people working for every 1 person retired. By the time we hit the year 2030, there will only be 2 people working for every person retiring in this country because the baby boom generation is huge.

What is the impact on our Federal Treasury but more especially on the taxing of our children and our children's children when this happens?

This chart, in red, shows it most dramatically. These are the three programs in the Federal Government--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--and the spending they absorb.

Now, historically, Federal spending, the amount spent by the Federal Government, has averaged about 20 percent of the gross national product for a long time. That is the blue line here. And you can see that back in 1980, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid took up about 8 percent of the gross national product, and the balance was taken up in the Federal spending on national defense and other items.

Today, that number has gone up so that it represents about 10 percent of the gross national product being absorbed by Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. But as you can see from this chart, by about the year 2030, when this baby boom generation is fully retired, these three programs alone--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--will use up all the revenues of the Federal Government--all of them. They will represent, in spending, 20 percent of gross national product.

The practical implications of that are that you will have no money available for national defense, for education, for environmental cleanup, for all the different things you would like to do--for veterans affairs--because these three spending programs--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--will essentially be absorbing 20 percent of the gross national product, unless--unless--you want to dramatically increase the taxes on our children so that they actually end up paying more than 20 percent of gross national product in taxes or you are willing to slash programs and the benefits going to seniors.

Neither of those options are very attractive, to say the least. If you look in the outyears, you see that these programs continue to accelerate even faster, so that by the year 2050, these programs are actually absorbing almost 30 percent of the gross national product. So we have to address this.

Well, it is similar to that old television ad that used to be aired. There was an oil filter ad that said: You can pay me now or pay me later, and if you pay me later, it is going to cost a heck of a lot more. You can replace the oil filter today for $14 or a year from now or in 6 months you are going to have to replace the engine in your car for $2,500. You have the choice.

We can act now and do some constructive and conscientious things to try to bring under control the rate of growth of entitlement spending, mandatory spending, that red line there, or we can bury our heads in the sand and say those are our children's problems, and they are going to have to pay our retirement benefits; we are not going to worry about them.

Well, the Republican Congress and the President have decided it is not good policy to pass this problem on to our children and it is not fair and it is not right. So we produced a budget this year which, as I mentioned, for the first time in 8 years has moved into the sacred ground of trying to address controlling the rate of growth of mandatory spending and thus reducing the size of the Federal deficit. It has been

complicated, it has been difficult, but we have made progress, and we now have in the Chamber this bill which does some very constructive things in this area.

The bill itself represents about $71 billion, in gross terms, in reducing deficit spending over the next 5 years. However, because we felt there were some initiatives which needed to be taken in moving forward to make these savings and to accomplish this deficit reduction, because we felt there should also be initiatives to move forward, the net number in this bill of actual deficit reduction is about $29 billion.

You may say, and some of our commentators have said: Well, it is not enough. This is small potatoes. Let me begin by saying, in New Hampshire, $39 billion is not small potatoes. I don't think it is anywhere in the United States, except in Washington. And more importantly, if you don't move forward with this attempt, you are essentially doing nothing, which means you have made no effort in the area of deficit reduction and no effort in the area of getting our spending under control.

Now, why do we net out about $30 billion of new spending in this effort? As I mentioned, the total bill is about 71 and the spending reduction is about 39. Well, there are two major initiatives in this bill which account for most of the initial spending. The first is that the majority of the money from each one of the subcommittees--I should explain this quickly. Each committee in the Congress was asked to save a certain amount of money in their area of responsibility. The Finance Committee was asked to save $10 billion, the Agriculture Committee was asked to save $3 billion, the Education and Labor Committee was asked to save $13 billion. The Education and Labor Committee, in reaching its savings target, decided to reduce corporate subsidies that benefit people who lend money to students. Basically, they took a policy position that the corporate subsidies were too high in this area.

In doing that, they felt that some of the savings from reducing those corporate subsidies should flow to students. So under the leadership of Chairman Enzi, there is essentially a major new push for funding programs that assist low-income students, low-income students who need assistance to go to college. That is good policy. We know that our country, if it is going to be competitive as we move into this century, has to be smarter, brighter, and more capable than the rest of the world, and the way you do that is by giving people the opportunity to go to college, no matter what their income levels are, and we give them an incentive to do that so they can be creative, imaginative, better educated and thus pursue better careers. And that is what we want, better careers for people. It creates jobs and opportunity throughout this country when we do that. So the HELP Committee--Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--came back with a program which had the $13 billion of savings in it, most of it through reducing corporate subsidies, lender corporate subsidies, and at the same time put a significant amount of new dollars, about $11 billion, into helping students, low-income students especially, go to college.

The second major initiative is in the area of trying to keep doctors engaged in the Medicare Program. We know we have a lot of doctors who don't believe they are adequately compensated under Medicare and, as a result, are less inclined to see patients.

The most important thing a patient needs if they are on Medicare is to see a doctor. That is fundamental to Medicare. There was a glidepath--it wasn't a glidepath; I guess it was a glidepath, it was coming down--to cut by 4.5 percent the salaries of doctors participating in Medicare. The chairman of the Finance Committee, Chairman Grassley, in a very foresighted decision, said that is not going to work because that means patients won't have access to doctors because doctors won't be treating patients if they have that sort of financial detriment placed on their back.

Basically, in his bill, he has saved significant dollars in the area of health care. He has put a considerable amount of those dollars into the effort to keep doctors whole. There is no big increase in here for doctors, but basically they are at a freeze level. I guess it is a 1- percent increase, in fact, and that means we will have more access for people, patients will have more opportunity to see people they need to see when they are sick. That is an important initiative.

All the spending--almost all the spending; I can't say all--almost all the spending programs in this bill, to the extent there are spending programs in this bill, are focused on low- and moderate-income people--in fact, almost entirely low and moderate efforts to give people more access to health care and students more access to college education.

That being added up, we now have on the floor a $35 billion deficit reduction package. That is a major step forward. On top of that, there are major initiatives in this bill to address the pension issue. We know we have a serious problem coming at us in these areas: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, but running right along with that, as one might expect, is a huge problem coming at us in the private pension area.

The pension guarantee fund, which essentially is a fund for when a company goes bankrupt--and we certainly are hearing a lot about that recently with our airlines--rather than allowing that company to completely wipe out that pension plan and all the people who worked for that company all their lives wake up one morning and find out they don't have a pension, even though they paid into it for years, this Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation guarantees a certain percentage of that pension will be paid--not all of it but a percentage of it. Because there have been so many bankruptcies and because we have had such a huge pressure on old-line industries in this country who had defined benefit plans, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is looking at a $30 billion to $50 billion deficit, which means it cannot meet its liabilities, which means, once again, at risk are even the slimmed-down pensions which come to people who find their pensions in the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

So in this bill there is an attempt to move toward solvency in that corporation, and that is good policy. Again, that came out of Senator Enzi's proposals, and he should be congratulated for it. His committee ended up with the largest lift, so to say, in this effort, and they did an excellent job in meeting that requirement.

This is a very balanced bill, the bottom line of which is very simple: We are going to reduce the deficit by $35 billion in 5 years and that, quite honestly, translates--this is a big delta into the outyears--even into significantly more money as we move into the next 5 years.

This is a significant step forward in the area of fiscal discipline. It is something that needs to be done in this country, and it is something this Republican Congress has been willing to step up to try to do.

How has the other side reacted? We are going to hear a lot of people on the other side say this is a terrible bill because it cuts spending on the poor while it cuts taxes for the rich. That is the theme on the other side. It is a little hard to defend that position, quite honestly, in light of what this bill actually does.

First off, this bill does not cut spending to the poor. To the extent there is new spending in this bill, it actually assists especially low- income students. The Medicaid changes are focused primarily on pharmaceuticals and, in addition, are designed to give Governors much more flexibility.

I will tell you right now that a Governor who is worth his or her salt is going to be able to expand--expand--their care to low-income individuals under these proposals because they will have more flexibility. You give a good Governor more flexibility and they will need less dollars to do what they know is right. Because the stringencies of the Federal Government are so extraordinary, they waste a tremendous amount of money trying to meet the obligations. But there are no reductions in this bill toward low-income individuals. The reductions are focused on the pharmaceutical side. They are focused on trying to get the Medicaid system under control using good practices of management, something which I know the other side resists. But that is the way it works.

Then there is this concept of there is a tax cut for the rich in here. First off, this bill has no tax cut in it at all. None. There is no tax relief in this bill. I wish it did have tax relief, but it has no tax relief. It cannot have tax relief, and I think this point needs to be made, and later on I will ask the Parliamentarian for his precise description of this point. But under this bill, if it has tax relief, it would mean the second reconciliation bill on tax relief could not be undertaken, as I understand it, and, therefore, this bill has been scrubbed of any tax relief activity.

But the other side continues to say it is a tax bill. It is not. This is an opportunity--an opportunity--for the other side to vote to reduce the deficit by $39 billion--that is all it is--and to do it in a responsible way where we expand patients' access to health care, where we expand student loans, and where we get under control, finally, to some extent, some of these major entitlement programs, especially in the pension area, in the education area, and in the Medicaid area-- which leads me to my other point.

We are hearing a lot of crying of wolf from the other side on the tax relief issue. We are going to hear over and over the refrain: If you look at the tax bill that is going to come next, $70 billion, there is actually a net loss to the Treasury of $30 billion or so because this reduces spending by $39 billion, but the tax bill puts in tax relief of $70 billion. The next bill, hopefully, will put in tax relief of $70 billion, but let's go to what the items are on that list.

The next bill, the tax bill, is going to have in it a series of items that expire this year and next. What are the items that expire this year the other side appears to be opposed to because they say they are opposed to tax reconciliation? There is this alternative minimum tax. If we don't put in place relief for the alternative minimum tax, I think it is something like 8 or 9 or maybe even 20--the number is huge--million people, middle-income people, will suddenly pay taxes they did not pay before. It is a tax increase. The other side wants the increased taxes on those people, I guess. They want to raise the taxes on 8 to 9, 20 million people.

Next is the research and experimentation tax credit. This is one of the most important tax credits at the Federal level because it encourages companies to be creative and, as we know, the reason we are competitive as a nation is because we create better products and we have better research, R&D, and that is what creates jobs and careers in this country. I guess the other side of the aisle wants to eliminate the R&D tax credit. They want to raise taxes on entrepreneurship and on creativity.

The next tax that will expire in the next 2 years is the deduction for teachers' classroom expenses. This is the deduction we give to teachers who are good enough to, out of their own pocket, buy crayons for their classrooms; buy books for their classrooms, something they think their kids need. We decided teachers should have that type of help.

Not the other side of the aisle. I guess they want to raise taxes on teachers who do that. They want to raise those taxes.

The deduction for qualified educational expenses, once again, that is tied to the teachers' classroom expenses.

A deduction for State and local sales taxes--I have to admit, I am not sympathetic to letting the State and local taxes be deducted because New Hampshire doesn't have a sales tax. We also don't have an income tax. If you want to live where somebody knows how to handle their money, come to New Hampshire. But most of the high-tax States in this country--Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and California--and let me see, how many Republican Senators are from those States? I can't remember. I don't think there are any. In all of those States, the sales tax is a huge portion of their revenue. Yet the other side of the aisle, I guess, does not want people in those States to be able to deduct their sales tax because they do not want the next tax reconciliation bill to come through here. Very ironic. I think it shows the hypocrisy, maybe, of the other side of the aisle when they come in here claiming they are opposed to the reconciliation bill when, in fact, the beneficiaries of this reconciliation bill are going to be the high-tax States, most of whom are represented by Democratic Members in the Senate. The list goes on.

I hope people, when they hear this constant refrain in grand, large terms, will ask specific questions: What is that tax you want to raise on people? What is the tax increase you want to stick people with? Do you want people to have to pay more because they cannot deduct their sales tax? Do you want people to pay more because they are stuck with the alternative minimum tax? Do you want people to pay more because the teacher bought crayons for the classroom? Those are the questions you need to ask.

So this proposal coming from the other side is really a straw dog, and it is a lot of hyperbole. But if you look behind the hyperbole and ask the substantive question, What are they really proposing, you see quickly they have no substance to their argument, and that, in fact, this is their opportunity, if they wish to try to reduce the deficit, to vote for this bill which cuts the deficit by $39 billion.

We can also ask, Where is the Democratic budget that gives us an alternative? Have we seen a Democratic budget that has given us an alternative? We were on the floor for 50 hours, but we never saw a budget from the Democratic Party. Never. And we are going to be on the floor for 20 hours with this reconciliation bill. Are we going to see an alternative bill? I don't think so.

In fact, we put together what the Democratic proposal has been since we started with the budget program, how much they have proposed in new spending. You cannot read this. There is so much spending, we couldn't put it in big letters. We ended up with little letters. You can't read it because there is so much spending. But it adds up to almost $500 billion of new spending that has been proposed by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle since January 1, just this year, $500 billion almost.

So maybe that is their proposal. They never really fleshed this out in specifics, so we went back and asked-- clearly, if they had their way, they would probably want to increase spending--what is their specific proposal to reduce the deficit? What is that specific proposal? We went back and found out what it was, and here it is. This is the specific proposal of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for reducing the deficit: A blank page. A blank page.

There is going to be a lot of hyperbole in the next few days about how this bill doesn't do this or how it doesn't do that, but what this bill does is it reduces the deficit by $39 billion over the next 5 years. That cannot be denied. And the one major vote, the one opportunity people are going to have in this Senate as a result of the hard deficit is going to occur when we have final passage of this deficit reduction bill. We are going to be debating it for 20 hours, and then, hopefully, we will go to a vote.

I, again, congratulate all the chairmen of all the different committees who were able to hit this target in what is a very difficult time and a very difficult task.

I yield the floor to one of the architects of this bill who did an extraordinary job, Senator Grassley.

Mr. President, I very much thank Senator Judd Gregg, chairman of the powerful Budget Committee, for his leadership and for doing what has not been done in this Senate, it is my understanding, since 1997: We have a budget reconciliation bill that will reduce the deficit by changing programs that are either appropriated or on automatic pilot that tend to never get reviewed as often as they should in order to watch the taxpayers' money wisely.

Senator Gregg's commitment to fiscal discipline has informed and defined this process, and I am grateful for his efforts.

As he just did, I congratulate the chairmen of seven other authorizing committees whose titles of this bill, along with the Finance title that I am going to talk about, comprise this giant legislation that we call reconciliation that Senator Gregg successfully reported last week.

I know that it was not easy for the chairmen of these eight committees to reach consensus and to move their titles forward. These chairmen and the members of their committees have every right to be proud of the work they have done achieving savings but also implementing policies that will help American workers.

Today, we have saved nearly $40 billion over 5 years--to be more accurate, $39.1 billion over 5 years--and that is $4.1 billion more than Congress even directed these committees to do back in April when the budget was adopted. Considering the 8 years since this has been done, this is a significant accomplishment and one of which we ought to be proud.

Many of the proposals in my committee's title, as well as the other titles of this bill, have bipartisan support. Some of them have been proposed by the administration in its budget which came out last February. While I am hopeful that during the debate this week, we will be able to persuade a number of Democrat Members to vote in favor of this bill, I recognize that the budget process is often a partisan exercise and that we will be able to count on few, if any, votes from the Democrat side of the aisle.

As the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee made very clear with his chart that was blank, we have not seen a Democrat proposal. Why? Because they do not want to bite the bullet and do what is hard to suggest from their point of view--how to reduce the deficit--unless it might be by raising taxes because often that is their solution, whereas I myself have never come to the conclusion that the American public is undertaxed. I never have my taxpayers telling me that they are undertaxed. The problem of the budget deficit is that Congress overspends.

In developing my part of this budget reconciliation proposal, I attempted to address a number of bipartisan priorities. These efforts were acknowledged by my colleagues during last week's Senate Finance Committee markup, and I want those members of the Finance Committee to know that I appreciate their kind words. Rather than having their kind words, I would rather have had those Democrats vote for this bill coming out of my committee rather than having it come out on an 11-to-9 partisan vote.

The Finance Committee portion represents nearly a year's worth of work on behalf of members of my committee and the staffs of the respective members, as well as committee staff.

The Senate Finance Committee title achieves a net of $10 billion in savings from Medicare and Medicaid by reducing wasteful spending and by closing loopholes. The Finance title also targets resources to preserving and improving Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and Medicare. In particular, the Medicaid provisions in the title will also produce additional resources for States in operating their Medicaid Programs. In so doing, this bill protects Medicaid benefits for the most vulnerable of our society.

The Senate Finance Committee title cracks down on Medicaid fraud and abuse by encouraging States to aggressively pursue Medicaid fraud by implementing in the respective States, beyond the 13 that have done it, State false claims acts, which in comparable legislation at the Federal level is the single most important tool that U.S. taxpayers have to recover the billions of dollars stolen through fraud every year. In addition, my Finance Committee title requires suppliers that do business with Medicaid to have a false claims act education program so that those with evidence of fraud against Medicaid know they may pursue these claims on behalf of the Government and help to recover stolen funds. In order to fight Medicaid fraud, the Senate Finance Committee title dramatically increases resources to fight fraud and abuse in Medicaid. This then will protect State and Federal budgets and generate substantial savings from this investment.

My committee's title also achieves savings by helping State Medicaid Programs obtain millions in payments owed by third-party payers each year. It also produces savings by ending drug manufacturers' gaming of the system by closing the authorized generic loophole so that appropriate rebates are paid to the States.

The Senate Finance Committee title helps preserve services to beneficiaries by ending overpayments to pharmacies, by reforming the broken system used to reimburse pharmacists for prescription drugs, which is based on the flawed average wholesale price formula, costing taxpayers lots more money than it should. There have been 13 reports in the last 5 years dealing with an average wholesale price formula done by the Congressional Budget Office, the Inspector General's Office, and from the Government Accountability Office, all calling for reforming the Medicaid pharmacy payment formula and ending overpayment for prescription drugs. These overpayments have been costing the States, as well as our Federal Government, billions of dollars needlessly.

The bill also includes provisions to protect rural pharmacies and encourage greater use of cost-saving generic drugs. In addition, my portion of this reconciliation bill balances the savings derived from pharmacy payment reforms with an increase in the rebate paid to State Medicaid Programs by drug manufacturers from 15.2 percent to 17 percent.

On the Medicare side, the Finance title calls for the phaseout of the budget neutral modification to the MedicareAdvantage risk adjuster. This provision will help ensure that the health status risk adjuster required by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 meets its objective of providing accurate payment to plans based on their enrollees' health. The title also repeals the MedicareAdvantage regional stabilization fund.

There are concerns about these provisions, and some people have argued that we should not touch the MedicareAdvantage Program. In response, I point out that the phaseout of the risk adjuster was announced three times: first in February in the President's budget; second, with the 2006 rates; and again in the September CMS factsheet. So plans submitted their bids knowing full well that the phaseout was going to happen.

When we worked on the Medicare Modernization Act--and that was in 2003--the idea was that if the funds were not needed, then the dollars were to be returned to the U.S. Treasury. We have strong regional preferred provider organization participation. Regional preferred provider organizations are in 21 out of the 26 regions into which the country has been divided. Regional preferred provider organizations have several other safeguards to make sure they are available.

The base MedicareAdvantage rates have been fixed. There are risk corridors, network adequacy requirements, the essential hospital fund, and a moratorium on local PPOs. The title does not affect any of these safeguards, so we feel this money going back to the Federal Treasury under this bill is the right thing to do.

The Finance Committee title of this bill also preserves access to health care for seniors in Medicare by providing a 1-percent payment update to all providers paid under the Medicare physician fee schedule. This replaces a 4.4-percent payment cut that physicians are scheduled to receive in 2006 under the existing formula. So we change that formula to make sure that the 4.4-percent cut does not go through. On top of that, there is a small increase for our physicians.

The Part B premium is affected due to changes included in the title that affect Part B spending. While some provisions lower Part B spending, other provisions increase the spending. However, there is no effect on the Part B premium paid by our seniors until the year 2007. It is also important to keep in mind that the Part B premium increase does not affect low-income beneficiaries. In fact, I worked hard to extend the QI Program so that Part B premiums would continue to be covered for these individuals.

Avoiding the physician payment cut has strong support in the Senate. In July of this year, 89 Senators from both sides of the aisle sent a letter to the White House Office of Management and Budget calling for the removal of Part B drugs from the physician payment formula. This change, which the administration has the authority to make, would permit Congress to address the longstanding programs with the Medicare formula for reimbursing physicians.

Certainly, we are all concerned about any impact on Part B premiums, but this Senate is almost unanimous in its support of addressing this, as evidenced by the 89 signatures calling for changes in the formula that were sent to the administration. To be clear about this, the changes in the physician fee called for in that letter would also increase Part B premiums to our senior citizens. It is important that we take steps to maintain access to physician services in the Medicare Program. The benefits in Medicare are not worth much if beneficiaries cannot find a doctor when they need one.

Another important area addressed by the Senate Finance Committee is long-term care costs. Recognizing that long-term care costs account for significant spending in the Medicaid Program, this bill makes key provisions in long-term care for seniors and the disabled. Consistent with a proposal put forth by President Bush, this bill includes a ``money follows the person'' rebalancing demonstration program. This program would direct grants to States to increase use of home- and community-based services rather than institutional care, and it would eliminate barriers that prevent or restrict the flexible use of Medicaid funds so that individuals may receive support for long-term services in a setting of their choice. This is empowering people.

The title also provides new options for private coverage of long-term care through the long-term care partnerships and promotes the availability of programs of all-inclusive care for the elderly in rural areas.

The Finance Committee title also addresses a number of Medicare priorities while also achieving savings in other areas of Medicare. To begin, being mindful of the unique needs of rural residents and the facilities that serve them, the title protects access to Medicare services for rural beneficiaries.

First, the title would extend the hold-harmless provisions for the small rural hospitals and sole community hospitals from implementation of the hospital outpatient prospective payment system.

Second, it would expand coverage of additional preventive benefits under the Federal qualified health centers.

Third, it would extend the Medicare Dependent Hospital Program, which provides financial protections to rural hospitals with less than 100 beds that have greater than 60 percent of their patients coming from Medicare.

Another issue I suspect we will hear a good deal about during this debate over the next few days is the impact that Hurricane Katrina had when it devastated hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans.

The title would provide for a much needed downpayment to those States that have suffered as a result of Hurricane Katrina. I am committed to ensuring that the families who have suffered so greatly as a result of this national tragedy receive the services they need to rebuild their lives, and the States which have been affected are made whole.

The Finance Committee title of this bill also provides funding to strengthen and improve the Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program. As my colleagues know, as many as 23 States are projected to experience shortfalls in the Children's Health Insurance Program over the next 2 years. The national total of these State Children's Health Insurance Program shortfalls is near $1 billion. The Senate Finance Committee title includes temporary provisions that will stem these State shortfalls and ensure that States are not forced to curtail or end their Children's Health Insurance Program coverage for vulnerable low-income children.

In order to continue to improve the Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Programs, the Senate Finance Committee title in this reconciliation bill also includes outreach and enrollment efforts so that children eligible for public health assistance receive that assistance.

This legislation also addresses a fundamental flaw in our current Medicare payment system. Right now, Medicare payment policies do not encourage high-quality care. In other words, doctors get the same reimbursement and hospitals get the same reimbursement whether they are doing the highest quality of care or whether they do not care, and people are always going back into the hospital because the job is not done right the first time. So we have come to the conclusion that we need to reward quality and we need to provide incentives to invest more in health care information technology and other efforts that will improve health care quality.

This reconciliation bill does just that. This bill implements recommendations from the Institute of Medicine and also from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. These provisions are based on the bipartisan Medicare Value Purchasing Act, which is S. 1356, introduced by me and my Democratic colleague, the leader on the other side of the aisle of the committee, Senator Baucus of Montana. The legislation creates quality payments under Medicare for physicians and other providers, including hospitals, health plans, skilled nursing facilities, home health organizations, and end stage renal disease facilities.

Finally, the Senate Finance Committee title includes the Family Opportunity Act. The Family Opportunity Act was motivated by the circumstances of individual families--the Melissa Arnold family of Iowa and the Dylan Lee James family. You could say they are representative of hundreds of thousands of families. Both are families we use as an example of those who relied on Medicaid health services for their children with disabilities, and both families ended up risking eligibility for Medicaid as a result of financial eligibility rules that continue to create disincentives for parents to work and stay working and even improve their employment opportunities.

Acute need persists for the Family Opportunity Act. It is just as important today as it was over the past several years that I have been fighting to get the Family Opportunity Act law. I have heard from a number of families in Iowa and across the country, speaking of the imperative to enact the Family Opportunity Act. They tell me about their son or daughter or grandchild, and how much they love their child or grandchild and how important it is to tell their story. They tell about the illness or disability that their families have been struggling with for years.

Then they describe how dad and mom could comfortably support their family but must remain poor, even unemployed, in order that their child receive the health care coverage they need. These parents want to work and provide for their families but must put the health care of their child first.

If we are able to successfully pass the legislation--we have been able to pass this legislation in the Senate, but it did not get through the House of Representatives. If we are successful again, we will achieve important savings that help put our fiscal house in order as well as preserve benefits and ultimately expand access through the Family Opportunity Act for families in Iowa and across the Nation.

The Finance Committee title of this bill achieves significant savings in Medicare and Medicaid by reducing wasteful spending and closing loopholes. It then directs much of these savings to make improvements in these programs that expand access to health care services, protect health care coverage for kids, and protect access to Medicare beneficiaries.

But the bottom line is more than $10 billion in savings in existing programs or additional money being recouped from fraud or money coming in from fees. The bottom line to the Federal deficit is $10 billion.

I have two summaries of the Finance Committee title. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the ``Medicare Value Purchasing Act of 2005.''

This bill will establish a new program to link a portion of Medicare's reimbursement for health care services to the quality of that care. This bill takes a crucial step towards improving the value of our health care dollar as well as the safety and quality of our Nation's health care system.

Last week, I gave a statement in this Chamber about America's place in the world. I am proud of our Nation; I am proud of our enterprising spirit, our energy, our diversity, and the hope for a better future that is inherent to our roots. I am proud of this country, but I am disappointed in the state of our health care system and in the impact it is having on the lives of our fellow citizens, as well as on the economy and ultimately on our place in the world. As I look to the future, I see a stronger America, but I know we must work hard to make sure that vision is realized.

We hear about the problem of increasing health care costs nearly every day--in newspaper headlines and in casual conversations. Per capita spending on health care in America is nearly 2\1/2\ times the average in the industrialized world. We spend over $5,000 per person on health care, and premiums for employer-sponsored coverage are rising five times faster than inflation.

With all this money going into health care, one might assume we had the best health care in the world. But that assumption is wrong. Despite spending more per capita than any other developed nation, the World Health Organization ranks the United States 37th in health care quality. As many as 98,000 patients die each year as a result of medical errors, and research has shown that in some cases more care, more specialists, and more treatments, actually result in worse outcomes for the patient.

Costs are rising, we are not getting high-quality care for the dollars spent, and due to the nature of our health care system much of this burden is borne by employers. For the first time, the Big Three automakers are beginning to charge premiums and scale back benefits for their workers and retirees, because they can't afford the cost of health care. All told, GM estimates that they will spend about $6 billion in 2005 on health care. This translates into $1,525 for every vehicle they sell. That is more than the company spends on steel.

By comparison, Toyota's health care costs are about $1,000 less per vehicle. It is not surprising, therefore, that a recent survey of business leaders found that 65 percent of top Chief Financial Officers in the United States feel that it is very important for Congress to address the cost of health care. Their European and Asian counterparts did not cite the costs of health care among their top concerns.

No other industry tolerates the level of disrepair that can be found in the U.S. health care system today. Many of my colleagues in the Senate agree that in order to improve the system, we need to do more to control health costs through efficient purchasing and the use of health information technology. In other words, we need to create a ``culture of efficiency'' in health care.

How do we do that? First, we need to begin building a health information infrastructure that can reach providers and patients nationwide, from Manhattan, NY to Manhattan, MT. We must take aggressive steps to establish standards and policies around this infrastructure, and to make initial investments in hardware, software, and training. I applaud my colleagues Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy for introducing important legislation on this topic today, the ``Health Information Technology and Quality Improvement Act of 2005''.

Building a Health Information Infrastructure will facilitate the provision of high-quality care. But we also must begin rewarding quality in the way we pay for health care. Today, Medicare payment policies typically do not include mechanisms designed to encourage quality of care. Medicare does not distinguish between paying for care that is necessary and that which might be unnecessary or inappropriate.

As a result, I worked with Senator Grassley to design a program that will tie a portion of Medicare reimbursement for hospitals, physicians, health plans, renal dialysis facilities, and home health agencies to the quality of care provided in these settings. Payment for these providers, as well as for Skilled Nursing Facilities, would also be linked to reporting data on

quality of care and, after the first year of the program, to making this data available to the public.

The Medicare Value-Based Purchasing program would begin paying for value in the health care system--good care, better patient outcomes, evidence-based medicine, and increased transparency. We have learned a lot from programs such as this that have begun on a smaller scale in the private sector, and we hope that taking this step forward in Medicare will drive the entire health care system toward a system of high-quality, high-value health care.

But designing a program like this one is not easy, and I want to be clear on this point: I don't believe Congress should determine how the quality of health care is measured. That is why my bill sets up a system of stakeholder involvement at every step in the development and implementation of a Quality Measurement System for Medicare--in determining what measures of health care quality are appropriate for each provider group, in implementing a system of data collection and analysis, and in updating the measurement system in accordance with changing science. Providers, payers, patients, and many other groups are the key experts who should be involved in the details of a health care quality system--not Congress.

But it is our job to lay out some of the parameters for the system, and to provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority to follow them and create this new program. It is also our job to oversee such a program once it is enacted and implemented. Over the last year or so, we have met with provider groups, consumer organizations, researchers and policy experts, and many of the individuals who have built and participated in private-sector programs to drive quality improvement in health care.

As I mentioned, our bill sets up a process by which a quality measurement system is developed in consultation with stakeholders and is uniquely tailored for the different groups of providers who participate in Medicare. This system should measure the quality of health care in a variety of ways, looking at processes of care, health information technology infrastructure, patient outcomes, patient experience of care, efficiency of resource use, and equity. For some groups of providers, only a very few measures of health care quality will be available when the program begins. These providers should not be penalized for that, but rather rewarded for reporting and improving the quality of the care they provide according to those measures. We may start small in some cases, but we can get the ball rolling.

The bill sets up a two-phase approach to quality improvement. In the first phase, the annual update to a provider's reimbursement is tied to reporting data on quality of care. This data would be on the measures included in the Medicare Quality Measurement System which has been developed by the Secretary with stakeholder involvement. Some providers--such as hospitals, Medicare Advantage Plans, and renal dialysis facilities, are already reporting data on quality of care to Medicare and might move more quickly to the second phase of the program.

In the second phase, those providers who report data on quality of care to the Secretary will be able to participate in value-based purchasing, where a portion of total payments to participants in each provider group is taken to form a quality pool. The funds in this pool are then reallocated to award providers who demonstrate high-quality care, or who show that they are improving. In theory, this sets up a system in which all providers could receive money back out of the pool--in essence it is a system that will ``raise all boats.'' Following the recommendation of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, the portion of payments tied to quality in this second phase will be 1 percent in the first year of the program for each provider group, and will increase to 2 percent over five years.

In addition to setting up this program, the ``Medicare Value Purchasing Act of 2005'' includes additional measures to facilitate quality improvement in the health care system, such as a provision to reduce the legal barriers to health IT adoption that are present in the Federal anti-kickback and Stark laws.

It also includes several studies to look more closely at the true costs of health care, and the benefits--both human and financial--that can be gained from improving quality. The information generated by these studies will be critical in moving forward with value-based purchasing, allowing us to more accurately predict the program-wide savings from efforts to improve quality. Given that the Medicare Part A Trust Fund faces insolvency in 2020--decades earlier than Social Security--identifying these savings will be critical to preserving access, to care for Medicare beneficiaries and adequate reimbursement for providers.

Senator Grassley and I set out to write a bill that would address value-based purchasing, set up a system of measuring quality of care in Medicare, and encourage the adoption of health information technology. We set out to write a bill that, in concert with the bill introduced by Senators Enzi and Kennedy would create a roadmap to a ``culture of efficiency'' in health care.

That means that our bill does not put new money on the table to reward health care quality, and it does not fix the problems that currently exist with the physician payment system or with reimbursement updates to renal dialysis facilities. But nor does it mean that we are blind to these issues. Indeed, I know that sustained cuts to the physician fee schedule, which will take effect if current law is not changed--are not sustainable.

I want to work with physicians and practitioners to find a sustainable solution to the problems with the physician fee schedule, and I want to work with the renal dialysis community to make sure that reimbursement is adequate so that facilities--especially those in underserved areas--can keep their doors open. But I also ask these providers to work with me to move Medicare in the right direction-- ultimately, better quality and value means better health care, better coverage, and a stronger system for all.

Finally, I believe that quality improvement efforts should extend beyond Medicare, into the Medicaid and SCHIP programs, and into the private sector. Currently, programs at the State level have found ways to improve quality and find efficiencies through health information technology use in Medicaid. Our bill includes State government health program representatives in the process of developing the Quality Measurement System because we believe they have important perspective to share, and also because we believe that quality improvement policies are equally important for their programs. I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley on a bill to address quality of care in the Medicaid and SCHIP programs later this year.

I want to thank my colleagues Chairman Grassley, Chairman Enzi, and Senator Kennedy, as well as their able health care staff, for their tireless work on this legislation. We feel passionately about this issue because it matters to all of us. We all want to ensure that the best care possible is provided. We know how hard health care providers work for their patients, and we believe they should be rewarded for that work. And we believe this issue should be advanced in the Congress as soon as possible.

As I said, I have a vision of a stronger America. I envision a health care system in which quality and value are rewarded, in which innovative health information technology is accessible to all, in which data systems that can exchange crucial patient information to save lives and prevent mistakes, and in which American companies are not at a competitive disadvantage in the world because of health care costs. I call on my colleagues to support the important steps toward that vision that will be taken under the pieces of this legislation introduced today.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to be joined by my two friends and Finance Committee colleagues, Senator Jeffords and Senator Kerry, in filing legislation to close a loophole in the 2003 tax cut bill. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 provided for lower rates of taxation on dividend income. Formerly, taxpayers paid ordinary income rates on dividend income. Now, individuals who receive dividends are taxed at either a 15 percent for upper-income taxpayers, or a 5-percent rate for lower-income taxpayers. Further, in 2008, this lower rate becomes zero before the whole provision expires in 2009.

The demand for lower rates was premised on the claim that dividend income was subject to double taxation; that is, taxed once by the corporate entity and then again by the shareholder. Assuming that is the case, then if we are sure the corporate entity is not subject to tax, the dividend should not be afforded the special rate. In fact, we heard testimony today in the Taxation Subcommittee that corporations with little or no taxes at the entity level really receive an additional benefit from the dividend tax break.

Current law, however, allows dividends from ``qualified'' foreign corporations to benefit from these lower rates if the company is based in a U.S. possession, or based in a country with which the U.S. has a tax treaty, or has stock which is traded on a U.S. stock exchange. Senator Jeffords, Senator Kerry, and I have become concerned that the definition of qualifying foreign corporations is overly broad and may encompass companies in tax haven countries with little or no tax system. Providing this special benefit for such companies simply because its stock is traded on a U.S. exchange does not meet with the original intent of the legislative change. Our bill would shut down this loophole by modifying the ``stock exchange'' test to only allow this special rate for companies based in countries with a comprehensive income tax system. By doing this, we will address a current inequity between dividend-paying stocks and make sure that only stock of companies subject to tax at the corporate level enjoys this preferential rate.

With every tax bill we enact, it is important to review the provisions from time to time to make sure the law works as intended. Here, I believe we have found a significant and unintended loophole. Certainly, as we debate whether to extend, expand, or eliminate these preferential rates, we should also be open to improvements in the current law. I encourage my colleagues to join with us in working for such an improvement.