Early Treatment for HIV Act of 2005

Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation today that would increase the mileage reimbursement rate for volunteers.

Under current law, when volunteers use their cars for charitable purposes, the volunteers may be reimbursed up to 14 cents per mile for their donated services without triggering a tax consequence for either the organization or the volunteers. If the charitable organization reimburses any more than that, they are required to file an information return indicating the amount, and the volunteers must include the amount over 14 cents per mile in their taxable income. By contrast, the mileage reimbursement level currently permitted for businesses is 40.5 cents per mile.

We are asking volunteers and volunteer organizations to bear a greater burden of delivering essential services. But the 14 cents per mile limit is posing a very real hardship for charitable organizations and other nonprofit groups. I have heard from a number of people in Wisconsin on the need to increase this reimbursement limit.

A representative of one organization, the Portage County Department on Aging, explained just how important volunteer drivers are to their ability to provide services to seniors in that county. The Department on Aging reported that dozens of volunteer drivers delivered meals to homes and transported people to medical appointments, meal sites, and other essential services.

As many of my colleagues know, the senior meals program is one of the most vital services provided under the Older Americans Act, and ensuring that meals can be delivered to seniors or that seniors can be taken to meal sites is an essential part of that program. Unfortunately, Federal support for the senior nutrition programs has stagnated in recent years. This has increased pressure on local programs to leverage more volunteer services to make up for lagging Federal support. The 14 cents per mile reimbursement limit, though, increasingly poses a barrier to obtaining those contributions. Portage County reports that many of their volunteers cannot afford to offer their services under such a restriction. And if volunteers cannot be found, their services will have to be replaced by contracting with a provider, greatly increasing costs to the Department, costs that come directly out of the pot of funds available to pay for meals and other services.

And the same is true for thousands of other non-profit and charitable organizations that provide essential services to communities across our Nation.

By contrast, businesses do not face this restrictive mileage reimbursement limit. The comparable mileage rate for someone who works for a business is currently 40.5 cents per mile. This disparity means that a business hired to deliver the same meals delivered by

volunteers for Portage County may reimburse their employees over double the amount permitted the volunteer without a tax consequence.

This doesn't make sense. The 14 cents per mile volunteer reimbursement limit is badly outdated. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress first set a reimbursement rate of 12 cents per mile as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and did not increase it until 1997, when the level was raised slightly, to 14 cents per mile, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

The bill I am introducing today is identical to a measure I introduced in the 107th Congress and the 108th Congress in nearly every respect. It raises the limit on volunteer mileage reimbursement to the level permitted to businesses. It is essentially the same provision passed by the Senate as part of a tax bill in 1999, and it is essentially the same provision that passed the Senate as part of the CARE Act.

At the time of the 1999 tax bill, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that the mileage reimbursement provision would result in the loss of $1 million over the five-year fiscal period from 1999 to 2004. The revenue loss was so small that the JCT did not make the estimate on a year by year basis.

Though the revenue loss is small, it is vital that we do everything we can to move toward a balanced budget, and to that end I have included a provision to fully offset the cost of the measure and make it deficit neutral. That provision increases the criminal monetary penalties for individuals and corporations convicted of tax fraud. The provision passed the Senate in the 108th Congress as part of the JOBS bill, but was later dropped in conference and was not included in the final version of that bill.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It will help ensure charitable organizations can continue to attract the volunteers that play such a critical role in helping to deliver services and it will simplify the tax code both for nonprofit groups and the volunteers themselves.

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

Mr. President, today I will reintroduce in the Senate the Reasonable Notice and Search Act. This bill is nearly identical to a bill I introduced in the 108th Congress, S. 1701. It addresses Section 213 of the USA-PATRIOT Act, the provision of that important statute passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks that has caused perhaps the most concern among Members of Congress and the public. Section 213, sometimes referred to as the ``delayed notice search provision'' or the ``sneak and peek provision,'' authorizes the government in limited circumstances to conduct a search without immediately serving a search warrant on the owner or occupant of the premises that have been searched.

Prior to the PATRIOT Act, secret searches for physical evidence were performed in some jurisdictions under the authority of Court of Appeals decisions, but the Supreme Court never definitively ruled whether they were constitutional. Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act authorized delayed notice warrants in any case in which an ``adverse result'' would occur if the warrant were served before the search was executed. Adverse result was defined as including: 1. endangering the life or physical safety of an individual; 2. flight from prosecution; 3. destruction of or tampering with evidence; 4. intimidation of potential witnesses; or 5. otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial. This last catch-all category could apply in virtually any criminal case. In addition, while some courts had required the service of the warrant within a specified period of time, the PATRIOT Act simply required that the warrant specify that it would be served within a ``reasonable'' period of time after the search.

It is interesting to note that this provision of the PATRIOT Act was not limited to terrorism cases. In fact, before the PATRIOT Act passed, the FBI already had the authority to conduct secret searches of foreign terrorists and spies with no notice at all under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Furthermore, the PATRIOT Act ``sneak and peek'' authority was not made subject to the sunset provision that will cause many of the new surveillance provisions of the act to expire at the end of this year unless Congress reenacts them. So Section 213 was pretty clearly a provision that the Department of Justice wanted regardless of the terrorism threat after 9/11.

Perhaps that is why this provision has caused such controversy since it was passed. In 2003, by a wide bipartisan margin, the House passed an amendment to the Commerce-Justice-

State appropriations bill offered by Representative Otter from Idaho, a Republican, to stop funding for delayed notice searches authorized under section 213. The size of the vote took the Department by surprise, and it immediately set out to defend the provision aggressively. Clearly, this is a power that the Department does not want to lose.

I raised concerns about the sneak and peek provision when it was included in the PATRIOT Act. I did not, and still do not, believe there had been adequate study and analysis of the justifications for these searches and the potential safeguards that might be included. I did not argue then, however, and I am not arguing now that there should be no delayed notice searches at all and that the provision should be repealed. I simply believe that this provision should be modified to protect against abuse. My bill will do four things to accomplish this.

First, my bill would narrow the circumstances in which a delayed notice warrant can be granted to the following: potential loss of life, flight from prosecution, destruction or tampering with evidence, or intimidation of potential witnesses. The ``catch-all provision'' in section 213, allowing a secret search when serving the warrant would ``seriously jeopardize an investigation or unduly delay a trial'' can too easily be turned into permission to do these searches whenever the government wants.

Second, I believe that any delayed notice warrant should provide for a specific and limited time period within which notice must be given--7 days. This is consistent with some of the pre-PATRIOT Act court decisions and will help to bring this provision in closer accord with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Under my bill, prosecutors will be permitted to seek 7-day extensions if circumstances continue to warrant that the subject not be made aware of the search. But the default should be a week, unless a court is convinced that more time should be permitted.

Third, Section 213 should include a sunset provision so that it expires along with the other expanded surveillance provisions in Title II of the PATRIOT Act, at the end of 2005. This will allow Congress to determine if the balance between civil liberties and law enforcement has been correctly struck.

Finally, the bill requires a public report on the number of times that section 213 is used, the number of times that extensions are sought beyond the 7-day notice period, and the type of crimes being investigated with this power. This information will help the public and Congress evaluate the need for this authority and determine whether it should be retained or modified after the sunset.

These are reasonable and moderate changes to the law. They do not gut the provision. Rather, they recognize the growing and legitimate concern from across the political spectrum that this provision was passed in haste and presents the potential for abuse. They also send a message that Fourth Amendment rights have meaning and potential violations of those rights should be minimized if at all possible. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, today I will reintroduce the Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act. The bill is identical to the bill I introduced in the 108th Congress, S. 1507.

This bill would amend Sections 215 and 505 of the USA-PATRIOT Act to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans. It would set reasonable limits on the Federal Government's access to library, bookseller, medical, and other sensitive, personal information under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (``FISA'') and related foreign intelligence authority.

I am pleased that several of my distinguished colleagues have joined me as original cosponsors of this important legislation.

Millions of Patriotic Americans love our country and support our military men and women in their difficult missions abroad, but worry about the fate of our Constitution here at home.

Much of our Nation's strength comes from our constitutional liberties and respect for the rule of law. That is what has kept us free for our two and a quarter century history. Our constitutional freedoms, our American values, are what make our country worth fighting for as we strive to win the war on terror.

Here at home, there is no question that the FBI needs ample resources and legal authority to prevent future acts of terrorism. But the PATRIOT Act went too far when it comes to the government's access to personal information about law abiding Americans.

Even though in the end I opposed the PATRIOT Act, there were many provisions that I did support. And even in those provisions I sought to amend when the bill was debated, there was often some change that I supported. For example, Congress was right to expand the category of business records that the FBI could obtain pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Prior to the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could seek a court order to obtain only travel records--such as airline, hotel, and car rental records--and records maintained by storage facilities. The PATRIOT Act allows any business records to be subpoenaed. I don't quibble with that change.

But what my colleagues and I do find problematic--and an increasing number of Americans who value their privacy and First Amendment rights agree with us--is that the current law allows the FBI broad, almost unfettered access to personal information

about law-abiding Americans who have no connection to terrorism or spying.

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act requires the FBI to show in an application to the court that the documents are ``sought for'' an international terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation. There is no requirement that the FBI make a showing of individualized suspicion that the documents relate to a suspected terrorist or spy.

In other words, under current law, the FBI could serve a subpoena on a library for all the borrowing records of its patrons or on a bookseller for the purchasing records of its customers simply by asserting that they want the records for a terrorism investigation.

Since the passage of the PATRIOT Act, librarians and booksellers have become increasingly concerned by the potential for abuse of this law. I was pleased to stand with the American Booksellers Association and the Free Expression Network over 2 years ago when we first started to raise these concerns.

Librarians and booksellers are concerned that under the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could seize records from libraries and booksellers in order to monitor what books Americans have purchased or borrowed, or who has used a library's or bookstore's internet computer stations, even if there is no evidence that the person is a terrorist or spy, or has any connection to a terrorist or spy.

These concerns are so strong that some librarians across the country have taken the unusual step of destroying records of patrons' book and computer use, as well as posting signs on computer stations warning patrons that whatever they read or access on the internet could be monitored by the federal government.

As a librarian in California said, ``We felt strongly that this had to be done. . . . The government has never had this kind of power before. It feels like Big Brother.''

And as the executive director of the American Library Association said, ``This law is dangerous. . . . I read murder mysteries--does that make me a murderer? I read spy stories--does that mean I'm a spy? There's no clear link between a person's intellectual pursuits and their actions.''

The American people do not know how many or what kind of requests Federal agents have made for library records under the PATRIOT Act. The Justice Department refuses to release that information to the public.

But in a survey released by the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, about 550 libraries around the Nation reported having received requests from Federal or local law enforcement during the past year. About half of the libraries said they complied with the law enforcement request, and another half indicated that they had not.

Americans don't know much about these incidents, because the law also contains a provision that prohibits anyone who receives a subpoena from disclosing that fact to anyone.

In testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Ashcroft stated that as of September 18, 2003, the Department of Justice had never used Section 215. The Department has not made that claim in public testimony since then, leading many to speculate that the provision has now been used. Whether it has been used once, or dozens of times, the problem with the section remains--it is too broad and does not permit adequate judicial supervision. There is a potential for overreaching that Congress must address.

David Schwartz, president of Harry W. Schwartz Bookshops, the oldest and largest independent bookseller in Milwaukee, summed up well the American values at stake when he said: ``The FBI already has significant subpoena powers to obtain records. There is no need for the government to invade a person's privacy in this way. This is a uniquely un-American tool, and it should be rejected. The books we read are a very private part of our lives. People could stop buying books, and they could be terrified into silence.''

I would not claim that we have reached the point where people in this country are afraid to buy books, but section 215 is a tool that is unnecessarily broad. And it raises the specter of indiscriminate government snooping into the private lives of innocent citizens, which is an unnecessary distraction from the serious law enforcement work that is needed to fight terrorism.

It is time to reconsider those provisions of the PATRIOT Act that are un-American and, frankly, unpatriotic.

But my concerns with the PATRIOT Act go beyond library and bookseller records. Under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could seek any records maintained by a business. These business records could contain sensitive, personal information--for example, medical records maintained by a doctor or hospital or credit records maintained by a credit agency. All the FBI would have to do is simply assert that the records are ``sought for'' its terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act goes too far. Americans rightfully have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their library, bookstore, medical, financial, or other records containing personal information. Prudent safeguards are needed to protect these legitimate privacy interests.

The Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act is a reasonable solution. It would restore a pre-PATRIOT Act requirement that the FBI make a factual, individualized showing that the records sought pertain to a suspected terrorist or spy while leaving in place other PATRIOT Act expansions of this business records power.

My bill will not prevent the FBI from doing its job. It recognizes that the post-September 11 world is a different world. There are circumstances when the FBI should legitimately have access to library, bookseller, or other personal information.

I'd like to take a moment to explain how the safeguard in my bill would be applied. Suppose the FBI is conducting an investigation of an international terrorist organization. It has information that suspected members of the group live in a particular neighborhood. The FBI would like to obtain records from the library in the suspects' neighborhood. Under current law, the FBI could decide to ask the library for all records concerning anyone who has ever borrowed a book or used a computer, and what books were borrowed, simply by asserting that the documents are sought for a terrorism investigation. But under my bill, the FBI could not do so. The FBI would have to set forth specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a suspected terrorist. The FBI could obtain only those library records--such as borrowing records or computer sign-in logs--that pertain to the suspected terrorists. The FBI could not obtain library records concerning individuals who are not suspected terrorists.

So, under my bill, the FBI can still obtain documents that it legitimately needs, but my bill would also protect the privacy of law- abiding Americans. I might add that if, as the Justice Department says, the FBI is using its PATRIOT Act powers in a responsible manner, does not seek the records of law-abiding Americans, and only seeks the records of suspected terrorists or suspected spies, then there is no reason for the Department to object to my bill.

The second part of my bill would address privacy concerns with another Federal law enforcement power expanded by the PATRIOT Act--the FBI's national security letter authority. The FBI does not need court approval to use this power.

My bill would amend section 505 of the PATRIOT Act. Part of this section relates to the production of records maintained by electronic communications providers. Libraries or bookstores with internet access for customers could be deemed ``electronic communication providers'' and therefore be subject to a request by the FBI under its NSL authority.

As I mentioned earlier, some librarians are so concerned about the potential for abuse by the FBI that they have taken matters into their own hands before the FBI knocks on their door. Some librarians have begun shredding on a daily basis sign-in logs and other documents relating to the public's use of library computer terminals to access the internet.

Again, safeguards are needed to ensure that any individual who accesses the internet at a library or bookstore does not automatically give up all expectations of privacy. Like the section

215 fix I've discussed, my bill would require an individualized showing by the FBI of how the records of internet usage maintained by a library or bookseller pertain to a suspected terrorist or spy.

Yes, the American people want the FBI to be focused on preventing terrorism. And, yes, it may make sense to make some changes to the law to allow the FBI access to the information that it needs to prevent terrorism. But we do not need to change the values that constitute who we are as a Nation in order to protect ourselves from terrorism. We can protect both our Nation and our privacy and civil liberties.

An increasing number of Americans are beginning to understand that the PATRIOT Act went too far. Four States and over 350 cities and counties across the country have now passed resolutions expressing opposition to the PATRIOT Act. And it's not just the Berkeleys and Madisons of this Nation, but other States and communities with strong conservative and libertarian values, such as Alaska and cities in Montana, that have passed such resolutions.

I have many concerns with the PATRIOT Act. I am not seeking to repeal it, in whole or in part. In this bill, my colleagues and I are only seeking to modify two provisions that pose serious potential for abuse.

The privacy of law-abiding Americans is at stake, along with their confidence in their government. Congress should act to protect our privacy and reassure our citizens. The Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act bill is a reasonable approach to do just that. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Computer Trespass Clarification Act of 2005, which would amend and clarify section 217 of the USA-PATRIOT Act. This bill is virtually identical to a bill I introduced in the 108th Congress, S. 2783.

Section 217 of the PATRIOT Act addresses the interception of computer trespass communications. This bill would modify existing law to more accurately reflect the intent of the provision, and also protect against invasions of privacy.

Section 217 was designed to permit law enforcement to assist computer owners who are subject to denial of service attacks or other episodes of hacking. The original Department of Justice draft of the bill that later became the PATRIOT Act included this provision. A section by section analysis provided by the Department on September 19, 2001, stated the following: ``Current law may not allow victims of computer trespassing to request law enforcement assistance in monitoring unauthorized attacks as they occur. Because service providers often lack the expertise, equipment, or financial resources required to monitor attacks themselves as permitted under current law, they often have no way to exercise their rights to protect themselves from unauthorized attackers. Moreover, such attackers can target critical infrastructures and engage in cyberterrorism. To correct this problem, and help to protect national security, the proposed amendments to the wiretap statute would allow victims of computer attacks to authorize persons `acting under color of law' to monitor trespassers on their computer systems in a narrow class of cases.''

I strongly supported the goal of giving computer system owners the ability to call in law enforcement to help defend themselves against hacking. Including such a provision in the PATRIOT Act made a lot of sense. Unfortunately, the drafters of the provision made it much broader than necessary, and refused to amend it at the time we debated the bill in 2001. As a result, the law now gives the government the authority to intercept communications by people using computers owned by others as long as they have engaged in some unauthorized activity on the computer, and the owner gives permission for the computer to be monitored--all without judicial approval.

Only people who have a ``contractual relationship'' with the owner allowing the use of a computer are exempt from the definition of a computer trespasser under section 217 of the PATRIOT Act. Many people-- for example, college students, patrons of libraries, Internet cafes or airport business lounges, and guests at hotels--use computers owned by others with permission, but without a contractual relationship. They could end up being the subject of government snooping if the owner of the computer gives permission to law enforcement.

My bill would clarify that a computer trespasser is not someone who has permission to use a computer by the owner or operator of that computer. It would bring the existing computer trespass provision in line with the purpose of section 217 as expressed in the Department of Justice's initial explanation of the provision. Section 217 was intended to target only a narrow class of people: Unauthorized

cyberhackers. It was not intended to give the government the opportunity to engage in widespread surveillance of computer users without a warrant.

I should note that there is no specific evidence that the provision is being abused. But, of course, unless criminal charges are brought against someone as a result of such surveillance, there would never be any notice at all that the surveillance has taken place. The computer owner authorizes the surveillance, and the FBI carries it out. There is no warrant, no court proceeding, no opportunity even for the subject of the surveillance to challenge the assertion of the owner that some unauthorized use of the computer has occurred.

My bill would modify the computer trespass provision in the following ways to protect against abuse, while still maintaining its usefulness in cases of denial of service attacks and other forms of hacking.

First, it would require that the owner or operator of the protected computer authorizing the interception has been subject to ``an ongoing pattern of communications activity that threatens the integrity or operation of such computer.'' In other words, the owner has to be the target of some kind of hacking.

Second, the bill limits the length of warrantless surveillance to 96 hours. This is twice as long as is allowed for an emergency wiretap. With four days of surveillance, it should not be difficult for the government to gather sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to obtain a warrant if continued surveillance is necessary.

Finally, the bill would require the Attorney General to annually report on the use of Section 217 to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. Section 217 is one of the provisions that is subject to the sunset provision in the PATRIOT Act and will expire at the end of 2005. We in the Congress need to do more oversight of the use of this and other provisions of PATRIOT Act in order to evaluate their effectiveness.

The computer trespass provision now in the law as a result of section 217 of the PATRIOT Act leaves open the possibility for significant and unnecessary invasions of privacy. The reasonable and modest changes to the provision contained in this bill preserve the usefulness of the provision for investigations of cyberhacking, but reduce the possibility of government abuse. We must continually seek to balance the need for effective tools to fight crime and terrorism against the civil liberties of our citizens. The Computer Trespass Clarification Act strikes the right balance, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in support of Senator Nelson's amendment to protect seniors against the outrageous increases in their Medicare costs.

Health care costs are skyrocketing and seniors are paying a greater share out of their pockets for health care each year. Medicare premium increases are outpacing inflation. Prescription drug costs are shooting through the roof.

Other out-of-pocket medical expenses are also increasing. Seniors are facing higher copays and deductibles. Last year's Medicare bill increased deductibles for doctors' visits by 10 percent. Deductibles for hospital and skilled nursing home visits are also rising.

Medicare beneficiaries spend a sizable portion of their income on health care. In 2004, beneficiaries spent about $3,725--nearly one- quarter--of their income on health care costs. Over the last 3 years, Medicare premiums have increased by 50 percent. Compare this to the only 10-percent increase in seniors' cost-of-living adjustments, COLA. Next year, Part B premiums will increase by another 12 percent.

But there is another problem this amendment addresses. The current Medicare physician payment formula, known as the sustainable growth rate, SGR, has serious flaws. The current formula has generated negative updates since 2001. Without congressional intervention, reimbursement rates for physicians in the Medicare Program will decrease by 4.3 percent next year.

I have long supported fixing this flawed formula. With the majority of my colleagues, I have written letters to CMS Commissioner Dr. Mark McClelan and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Joshua Bolten. I have supported legislation trying to address this issue. Without a permanent fix, this uncertainty causes considerable angst among the physician community every year. Although I believe Congress needs to enact a long-term solution, this amendment supports a 1 percent increase in the physician reimbursement rate for the next year.

But this increase in physician payments will also increase overall spending on Medicare Part B. This will in turn increase Medicare premiums, which are set at 25 percent of Part B expenses. While I strongly support the payment change, I believe it is equally important that Medicare beneficiaries not have their premiums unexpectedly increased.

This amendment ensures that Medicare beneficiaries will not have to pay unexpectedly higher premiums in 2007 because of the payment changes for 2006 in the Senate's budget reconciliation bill. This amendment prevents us from having to make a King Solomon-like decision. With this amendment, we do not have to consider ``cutting the baby in half.'' We do not have to decide between this modest increase to physician reimbursement and a further hike to our senior citizens--especially for those who are forced to live on a fixed income.

In addition, the increase necessary to provide for physician reimbursement will not have to come from taxpayers. The offset for this amendment is an expansion of a drug rebate program currently in place since 1990. Drug manufacturers currently pay a rebate to participate in Medicaid. The Nelson amendment would offset the cost of protecting Medicare beneficiaries from the Part B premium increase by providing Medicaid managed care plans access to these drug rebates.

I think it is a good idea to expand the drug rebate program from Medicare fee-for-service to all of Medicaid, including the managed care programs. When we first passed this law, 15 years ago, Medicaid managed care did not have such a strong presence. It now accounts for much of Medicaid services and should be part of this rebate program.

I believe honor thy mother and father is not just a good commandment to live by, it is good public policy to govern by.

That's why I feel so strongly about Medicare. Congress created Medicare to provide a safety net for seniors. In 1965, seniors' biggest fear was the cost of hospital care. One heart attack could have put a family into bankruptcy. That is what Medicare Part A is all about.

Then Congress added Medicare Part B to help seniors pay for doctor visits as an important step to keep seniors healthy and financially secure. Now, Part B premium increases are racing ahead of seniors' ability to pay. So seniors may lose the ability to pay for coverage for their doctor's visits.

This amendment is not an answer to skyrocketing health care costs, but a stopgap measure to give seniors a little breathing room. I am working hard on several bills to fix the Medicare bill that was passed last year. I am fighting to protect seniors' Social Security COLAs from increases in both Part B and Part D premiums.

I am fighting to close the coverage gap to provide a real drug benefit for seniors. I am fighting to allow the Government to negotiate with drug companies to lower the cost of prescription drugs to save money for the Government and for seniors. I am fighting to end the giveaways to insurance companies and use those savings to improve Medicare.

And I could go on.

I am fighting to protect physician reimbursement rates by supporting legislation and writing to government officials who have the authority to make changes to the flawed formula.

And I will continue to fight.

This amendment is a good step down in our constant attempt to reign in Medicare premium costs for seniors while protecting reimbursement rates for physicians.

Seniors cannot afford 17-percent increases in their Medicare premiums. Physicians cannot afford to have their reimbursement rates cut. I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing support for this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Opening the refuge is not the answer to solving our country's energy needs. We cannot drill our way out of our energy problems.

We need to focus on real solutions not gimmicks--solutions that decrease our dependence of foreign oil, protect the environment and help consumers at a time when the costs to fill up their gas tanks and heat their homes are at all time highs.

If we open the Arctic Refuge for oil and gas drilling, it would provide only about a 6-month supply of oil and would not even be available for 10 or more years. That means that drilling in the wildlife refuge would not affect our current oil and gasoline prices nor will it reduce our country's dependence on foreign oil. Even in 10 or so years when we might get the oil, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will help little if at all.

Rather than trying to get a couple of months of oil supply in 10 years, we need to address the most pressing issues facing our country now: our growing dependence on foreign oil, sky-high oil and gas prices, and global warming. This is what I have been fighting for--real solutions to real problems that would help today's consumers and tomorrow's energy needs.

That is why I fought to include an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill that would provide a million dollars to the Federal Trade Commission to immediately investigate claims of price gouging. While oil companies and refineries report record profits, American consumers shouldn't have to scrimp to buy gasoline to go to work, or church or to buy groceries. I also cosponsored a bill that would place a federal ban on price gouging for oil, gasoline and other petroleum products during times of energy emergencies. To drive this point home, I sent a letter to the chairwoman of the FTC, expressing my concern over the consolidation of oil refineries, resulting in the lack of competition.

I also recently sent a letter to President Bush urging him to convene a White House summit of oil and gas company CEOs to insist that they

lower their sky-high gas and home heating oil prices. These are some of the President's closets political supporters and friends They are also the same men and women who the President called on to write the administration's energy policy in 2001. If the President can call them in to help themselves, he should call them back to help ordinary Americans. Another letter called on the oil and gas company CEOs to temporarily halt unnecessary exports of any home heating oil products that they are currently sending abroad. We cannot expect Americans to pay over $1,000 to heat their homes this winter when U.S. companies are exporting billions of gallons of refined heating oil and propane.

We need to find solutions for tomorrow's energy needs as well as those facing Americans today. I introduced a bill that would provide tax incentives for energy efficient hybrid and fuel cell vehicles, which was included in the Energy bill. I also voted for a proviso in the Senate energy bill that would have required utilities to generate 10 percent of their energy from renewable sources. In addition, I supported a provision in the bill that requires the Federal Government to get at least 7.5 percent of our energy from renewable sources by 2013. I also supported an amendment that would require the U.S. to reduce foreign oil imports by 40 percent in 20 years

Just last week, oil companies reported record third quarter profits, some more than 85 percent higher than last year. As Americans struggle to fill their gas tanks and pay high home heating bills, the oil and gas companies are filling their pockets with historic profits. And now, here we are, in the Senate, giving them the opportunity to drill in federally protected land.

This is not a time to reward oil and gas companies with the promise of more profits. We need to give these companies the opportunity to be patriots--not profiteers. They need to join us by holding down prices, investing in renewable energy, serving the needs of Americans and conserving as much as possible. Together, America can do better.

Mr. President, I was correct then, and that is why we put pay-go into this resolution. The budget resolution does have pay-go in it, and it is the appropriate approach to pay-go because it recognizes there is a difference between tax relief and raising spending. The other side of the aisle has always looked on people's taxes as their money. We don't look at it that way on this side of the aisle. We look at it as the people's money, and they should be able to keep it. We should not have a rule that arbitrarily takes it from them.

For that reason, I oppose the amendment.

I make a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane before the Senate, and I raise a point of order under section 305 of the Budget Act.

I will yield to Senator Enzi.

Madam President, as I understand it, and I am not sure I understand it, I believe there is now still 2 minutes of debate available between the proponent of the second degree and the proponent in opposition. Is that correct?

I presume Senator Enzi and Senator Ensign can continue their discussion.

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry. And I ask unanimous consent that this time not be applied to the time relative to the debate that is available.

As I understand the situation, the 2 minutes of debate has already occurred on the Enzi amendment. We are now under 2 minutes of debate on the second-degree amendment, which is the Ensign amendment. Is that correct?

After this amendment is debated, there will be a vote on the motion to waive the point of order made by Senator Enzi from Wyoming, the motion to waive being made by Senator Ensign relative to the second-degree amendment. Is that correct?

Madam President, if I may respond to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Madam President, I say to the Senator from Massachusetts, because there was a second degree, the way it worked out, the debate on the Enzi amendment occurred as part of that process. So the 2 minutes did occur. However, because this is the first exercise here in this undertaking, I would suggest that, after the Ensign amendment is disposed of, if it is favorably disposed of, that there won't be 2 minutes, but if it is not favorably disposed of we would have another 2 minutes of debate on the Enzi amendment.

Madam President, I think the Senator from Wyoming has made an excellent case. We will try to orchestrate it in that manner, should we get additional second degrees.

At this point, the debate for 2 minutes is on the second-degree amendment, and Senator Ensign has a minute, and whoever claims the opposition has a minute.

Madam President, the next amendment is the Enzi amendment. I ask that we move immediately to a voice vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, the next amendment is the Lincoln amendment. I ask unanimous consent that all votes on additional amendments be 10 minutes.

We are going to clarify the issue of second-degree amendments that we just went through because, under the rule, all time has to expire on debate on the first degree before you can debate a second degree or offer it. That is why we had the confusion before. We are going to adjust that through this unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that for the purposes of today's votes, all second-degree amendments must be offered prior to beginning the 2 minutes of debate on the underlying first-degree amendment. Before the Chair rules, as a clarification, this will now mandate that second- degree amendments must be offered before we begin the 2-minute debate on the first degree. We would then have 2 minutes of debate on the second degree, both in relationship to the second degree, and then have 2 minutes of debate on the first degree prior to the vote in relationship to that amendment.

I also renew my request that votes on additional amendments be 10-minute votes.

The next amendment is that of Senator Lincoln.

Amendment No. 2356, as Modified

Madam President, this amendment is opposed by the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee has aggressively funded this account with $1.94 billion in this bill, which will cover 1.9 million victims of the hurricane. Therefore, these additional funds, if this amendment were to pass, would basically put the Finance Committee section of the bill out of compliance with the Deficit Reduction Act. Therefore, we oppose it.

I make a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to the measure now before the Senate. I raise that as a point of order under section 305 of the Budget Act.

I move to reconsider and I move to lay that motion on the table.

Madam President, we are now going to the Inhofe amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2357

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we are making progress, but it is slow. The next amendment is the amendment of Senator Cantwell, which is obviously the big polar bear.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays

Mr. President, we now go to Senator Grassley's amendment.

Mr. President, I would like to second the request of the Senator from North Dakota. I think it is a very appropriate statement.

Amendment No. 2359

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Byrd amendment, which was to be the next amendment, be moved to be after the Landrieu amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2360

Mr. President, the next amendment is the Lott amendment, the Amtrak amendment.

Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. President, I want to point out for the edification of our colleagues that we still have a lot of amendments to go. The estimate is in the high teens or potentially low twenties. At the pace we are going, we are not going to get them all done today, and we are going to be here on Friday.

I ask, Mr. President, if we can be advised as to how long the last three votes have taken. If we could hear from the clerks, approximately how long? We do not have to be precise.

How long have the votes taken?

At this pace, we are here Friday.

I hope Members will think about their amendments, if they have some they are still talking about, and give serious consideration to allowing a voice vote or allowing it to be worked out.

Amendment No. 2368, Withdrawn

I ask unanimous consent that the Corzine amendment, No. 2368, be withdrawn.

Mr. President, we are now on to Senator Murray's amendment.

Mr. President, CMS has a plan in place, and 6 months ago CMS introduced a strategy for transitioning dual eligibles from Medicaid to Medicare which lays out in great detail the steps CMS will take to ensure the continuity of coverage of this valuable group of beneficiaries. Therefore, the leadership of the Finance Committee strongly opposes this amendment.

I make a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to the measure now before the Senate, and I raise a point of order under section 305 of the Budget Act.

I yield to the Senator from Louisiana for the purpose of sending a modification to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.

Mr. President, the next item is the Harkin amendment, a sense of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that we have 2 minutes equally divided on this amendment.

For the information of the Senate, we are now off of the original list, having completed that. So we are into a period where, between myself and the Senator from North Dakota, we have organized a series of amendments to come forward. These will continue to be 10- minute votes, and they are going to be hard 10 minutes. That means that at the end of 10 minutes, I am going to ask the vote to be closed. Secondly, I ask unanimous consent that for all amendments which are brought forward from here on, there be 2 minutes equally divided between the proponent and the opponent.

Of course, we may actually get a voice vote in here, hopefully.

Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa has been kind enough to represent that he will accept a voice vote on this. I move that we proceed to a voice vote.

Mr. President, the next item of business will be Senator Byrd's amendment.

Mr. President, the practical effect of this amendment would be to essentially vitiate the reconciliation process. It would mean we would end up with an event that could be filibustered. The whole purpose of reconciliation is to have a time limit and to get to a vote. Therefore, this amendment would undermine completely the concept of reconciliation which, as is hopefully going to be proven by this

bill and others, is a very constructive way to get legislation through this institution and move forward with the business of the people.

Therefore, I make a point of order that the pending amendment contains matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget, and I raise a point of order against the amendment under section 306 of the Budget Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that votes on this and all further amendments be 10 minutes.

Madam President, I rise today to speak in favor of fiscal responsibility. This pay-go amendment introduced by Ranking Member Conrad of the Budget Committee, of which I am a cosponsor, seeks to fully reinstate the pay-as-you-go requirement for direct spending and revenue legislation in the Senate through 2010.

This is about restoring responsible budgeting. Previously, pay-go rules applied equally to increases in mandatory spending and decreases in revenue. New spending or tax cuts could only become law if they were offset or found 60 votes in support. This enforced a badly needed budget discipline. It said, either pay for your priorities whether entitlement spending or tax cuts or both or find a supermajority of colleagues willing to override the rule. Simple logic. Simple balance. Common sense. Pay-go worked well in the 1990s to reduce deficits and it can work well today.

Unfortunately, the rules were changed, and the balance was overturned. Now, the requirements of budget discipline apply to only half of the budget. Tax breaks are exempt from the logic and balance and common sense of budget discipline.

The problem is that there is no such thing as half a budget. Budget discipline requires enforcing control over both sides of the ledger. You can't fill a bath tub just by plugging the drain. You can't drive a car just by pressing on the brakes.

The original pay-go rules were abandoned to provide for a series of unfunded tax breaks. And since the tax breaks were unfunded, the Government had to borrow money to pay for them. So we borrowed from countries like Japan and China. And we borrowed from the Social Security trust fund. In the process, our national debt shot up to $8 trillion, and it is still rising. Last year, for example, our national commitments exceeded our national resources by more than $550 billion. And we continue to borrow.

Some have argued that this first chapter of reconciliation is an effort to reduce the deficit. They tout the reductions in spending, many of which I would support. But later this month, the Senate will get to chapter two of reconciliation, which proposes further unfunded tax breaks and guarantees additional deficits and growing debt. So much debt, in fact, that the third chapter of budget reconciliation, which no one really wants to talk about, will involve raising our country's debt ceiling to almost $9 trillion.

Americans deserve better financial leadership. The people I talk to in Illinois are not fooled by what is going on. They know what is happening with higher deficits and reduced levels of government service. They understand that, in this life, you get what you pay for and if you don't pay for it today, it will cost you more tomorrow.

Washington could learn a lot from the American people about fiscal responsibility. The people I have met with know that if you need to spend more money on something, you also

need to make more money, and if your income falls, your spending must fall, too. This is the essence of the pay-go rules we are trying to reinstate in the Senate. Changes in spending must be offset by changes in revenue, and vice versa.

Americans know that when you are already deep in debt, it is not the optimal time to be gutting your revenue stream, whether it's a few hundred dollars in the case of a family or a $70 billion tax break in the case of the Federal Government.

They also understand the difference between a home mortgage, a student loan, a credit card debt for uninsured health care expenses, and an unpaid tab at the bar. They know that some debts are good investments or may be unavoidable. But some debts are irresponsible the result of spending more than you can afford on purchases you could postpone or do without.

The people I have met with know that you do not respond to emergencies by indiscriminately cutting all parts of the family budget. You make choices and forego luxuries before cutting back on essentials like food, heating, education, and healthcare. They understand that across the board cuts are neither fair nor responsible. Such cuts sound bold, but they represent a lack of leadership, not an example of it.

The American people also know that the whole family must share in sacrifice--it is not right to pick on any one member of the family, or any one State in our Union. We are in this together. Singling out Alaska's bridge projects or any one State's earmarked funds is the wrong approach. If Congress is going to eliminate frivolous pork projects, as we should to support the gulf coast, let's eliminate all of them, in all States, together.

Finally, the people I talk to understand that when you have massive costs coming down the road, you need to prepare for them. There is no excuse for ignoring the financial consequences of foreseeable expenses whether it is the rising costs of health care, the retirement of the baby boom generation, or the growing inequality of wealth in our society.

You don't have to be a deficit hawk to be disturbed by the growing gap between revenues and expenses. This makes sense to people because the same principles that apply to our national budget apply to their family budgets as well. Americans are willing to share in the hard choices required to get us back on track, as long as they know that everyone is pulling their weight and doing their fair share.

That is why it is so important that we reinstate pay-go in a way that meaningfully enforces the budget discipline both sides of the aisle need to honestly tackle our short-term and long-term fiscal challenges.

Mr. President, it is time for fiscal responsibility to return to Washington. Adult supervision must return to the budgeting process.

Pay-go provides a necessary tool at a necessary time. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Amendment No. 2352, As Modified

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Harkin amendment, which expresses the sense of the Senate that this body will not accept the cuts to the child support program that have been proposed by the Committee on Ways and Means in the House of Representatives. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment.

The child support program is an effective and efficient way to enforce the responsibility of noncustodial parents to support their children. For every public dollar that is spent on collection, more than $4 is collected to support children. That is a good return on our investment in families. Moreover, these families are then less likely to require public assistance and more likely to avoid or escape poverty. This is a program that works.

The evidence is compelling. For example, in 2004, enforcement efforts helped collect almost $22 billion in child support. Our aggressive State and Federal efforts have translated into $1 billion in collected child support payments in Illinois alone this year. That means 386,000 Illinois families will be better equipped to provide for their children.

Preliminary budget estimates suggest the cuts proposed by the Ways and Means Committee will translate into $7.9 billion in lost collections within 5 years, increasing to a loss of over $24 billion within 10 years. This proposal is not even pennywise, and it is certainly pound foolish. Today, the State of Illinois reports a 32 percent child support collection rate. Let's not take a step backwards in the progress that has been made by stripping the States of necessary Federal support. Moreover, the welfare of too many is at stake. Child support is the second largest income source for qualifying low-income families. We cannot balance our budget on the backs of families who rely on child support to remain out of poverty.

This Congress claims that strengthening the family is a priority. Senator Harkin's amendment is a firm expression that we are serious about this worthwhile investment.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fairness in Bankruptcy Litigation Act of 2005.

This legislation will provide much-needed protection--for consumers, creditors, workers, pensioners, shareholders, and small businesses--by reforming the rules governing venue in bankruptcy cases to combat forum shopping.

Quite simply, my bill will prevent corporate debtors from moving their

bankruptcy cases thousands of miles away from the communities and their workers who have the most at stake. And it will prevent bankrupt corporations from effectively selecting the judge in their own cases-- because picking the judge isn't far off from picking the verdict.

This Act is a positive step for fairness, responsibility, and justice. It implements a major recommendation from the October 1997 National Bankruptcy Review Commission report, and earned the support of prominent bankruptcy law professors and practitioners nationwide. The bill is also supported by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) and former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger (D); Brady C. Williamson, who served as chairman of the National Bankruptcy Review Commission; and major national bankruptcy organizations like the National Association of Credit Management and the Commercial Law League of America.

With the introduction of this Act, this body will now have an opportunity to consider this growing crisis, which effects so many consumers and workers, just as we are about to examine the issue of comprehensive bankruptcy reform.

Sadly, our current bankruptcy venue law has become a target for enormous abuse. It's a problem that is well documented by academics, most recently in a comprehensive book published just last week by UCLA Law Professor Lynn M. LoPucki, as well as by Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren, who served as the reporter for the National Bankruptcy Review Commission, and Professor Jay L. Westbrook of the University of Texas Law School.

I have personal experience with the worst kind of forum shopping. During my service to the State of Texas as Attorney General, I argued that the Enron Federal bankruptcy court proceedings should be litigated in Houston. That seemed like the common sense argument, of course-- after all, Houston was where the majority of employees and others who were victimized by that corporate scandal called home.

Yet that's not where the case ended up. Instead, Enron was able to exploit a key loophole in bankruptcy law to maneuver their proceedings as far away from Houston as possible. They ended up in their desired forum in New York. See In re Enron Corp., 274 B.R. 327 (S.D.N.Y. Bankr. 2002).

Enron used the place of incorporation of one of its small subsidiaries in order to file a bankruptcy claim in New York, and then used that smaller claim as the basis for shifting all of its much larger bankruptcy proceedings into that same court. The company had 7,500 employees in the Houston headquarters, but they filed for bankruptcy in New York, where Enron had only 57 employees.

This kind of blatant forum shopping makes a mockery of our laws. The common-sense legislation that I've introduced today will combat such egregious forum shopping by requiring that corporate debtors file where their principal place of business or principal assets are located, rather than their state of incorporation, and forbidding parent companies from manipulating the venue by filing first through a subsidiary.

Bankruptcy venue abuse is not just bad for our legal system; it hurts America's consumers, creditors, workers, pensioners, shareholders, and small businesses. Under current law, corporate debtors effectively get to pick the court in which they will file for bankruptcy. As a result, creditors can be forced to litigate far away from the real-world location, where costs and inconveniences associated with travel are prohibitive.

This troubling loophole also serves to unfairly enable corporate debtors to evade their financial commitments. It badly disables consumers, creditors, workers, pensioners, shareholders, and small businesses from pursuing and receiving reasonable compensation from bankruptcy proceedings.

Current law allows debtors to forum shop and thereby to pick jurisdictions likely to rule in their favor. If debtors get to pick the jurisdiction, then bankruptcy judges have a disturbing incentive to compete with other bankruptcy courts for major bankruptcy cases, by tilting their rulings in favor of corporate debtors and their attorneys.

The examples are numerous. Here are three of the most prominent incidents: Polaroid. In October 2001, Boston-based Polaroid filed for bankruptcy in Delaware, listing assets at $1.9 billion. Polaroid's top executives claimed that the company was a ``melting ice cube,'' and arranged a hasty sale for $465 million to a single bidder. The court refused to hear testimony as to the true value of the company and closed the sale in only 70 days. The top executives went to work for the new buyer and received millions of dollars in stock. Meanwhile, disabled employees had their health-care coverage canceled. The so- called ``melting ice cube'' became profitable the day after the sale became final.

K-Mart. In January 2002, failed top executives delivered Michigan- based K-Mart to the bankruptcy court in Chicago, which reportedly had been actively soliciting large corporate debtors to file there. With a workforce of 225,000, K-Mart had more employees than any company that had ever filed bankrupt nationwide. The Chicago judge let the failed executives take tens of millions of dollars in bonuses, perks, and loan forgiveness. Bankruptcy lawyers also profited, pocketing nearly $140 million in legal fees. But some 43,000 creditors received only about ten cents on the dollar.

Worldcom. Worldcom perpetrated one of the biggest accounting frauds in history, inflating its income by $9 billion. Although based in Mississippi, Worldcom followed Enron into the New York bankruptcy court, where its managers received the same lenient treatment. No trustee was appointed; indeed, five months after the case was filed, the directors in office when the fraud occurred still constituted a majority of the board. They chose their own successors. A Top Worldcom executive used money taken from the company to build an exempt Texas homestead, and Worldcom took no action. That executive then used the homestead to buy his way out of his problems with the SEC. Meanwhile, creditors--mostly bondholders--lost $20 billion.

This is not the first time we have addressed this important issue. The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held a hearing on July 21, 2004, entitled ``Administration of Large Business Bankruptcy Reorganizations: Has Competition for Big Cases Corrupted the Bankruptcy System?,'' and Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) has previously led efforts to champion bankruptcy venue reform in the House. During the 107th Congress, Senator Durbin introduced S. 2798, the Employee Abuse Prevention Act of 2002, joined by Senators Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, and Rockefeller, while Congressman William D. Delahunt (D-MA) introduced the same bill in the House; section 205 of that legislation would have reformed bankruptcy venue law.

I believe we must take steps to respond to this important problem. The American people deserve better from our legal system. All bankruptcy cases deserve to be handled fairly and justly, and no corporate debtor should be allowed to escape responsibility by fleeing to another venue. It is high time that we take up this much-needed reform.

I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.