Child Support Distribution 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 express my support for the budget reconciliation bill conference report. As I have stated here during the different stages of debate on this year's budget, the most notable thing about this reconciliation bill is not the size of the reduction of the spending growth but rather the fact that it effectively takes the foot off the accelerator of spending growth and begins to touch on the brakes.

But to get us there, the conferees had to make some hard choices. I will be frank--I would prefer that we pass a bill similar to the one the Senate passed in November. That bill met our budgetary goals, and it struck the right balance. The conference report changes some social programs, and I understand the concerns many throughout Utah have expressed about how these changes will impact care.

That is why I spoke with Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt last night to discuss how this bill might affect social services in Utah. His assurances that the budget bill will not hurt our more vulnerable citizens were key to my decision to support S. 1932. Secretary Leavitt, who spent more than a decade serving as Utah's Governor, also committed to maintaining a watchful eye over implementation of this law to make sure that all Utahns' interests are protected.

So despite this, my paramount concern was that we act now to curb the growth in entitlement spending because it threatens every one of our children and grandchildren with an unbearable tax burden. This conference report marks the beginning of a much needed change--a change that must occur if we are to gain control of the fiscal future of this country. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, this conference report, if enacted, will represent the first time since 1997 that we have been able to reduce spending growth in entitlement programs.

The conference report before us includes a reduction in Federal outlays totaling almost $40 billion over the next 5 fiscal years. This, I am pleased to see, is nearly $5 billion more than the Senate version of the bill that we passed last month. While I am certainly not happy with all of the individual changes in the conference report, I do like its direction toward more savings growth.

One reason I am so anxious to turn the comer in slowing spending growth on these entitlement programs is that the long-term projections for Federal spending on the three largest entitlement programs--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--are truly alarming. In fact, a new report released last month by the Heritage Foundation states that fully funding these three programs will force Federal spending, as a share of GDP, to increase from today's level of 20 percent to almost 33 percent by 2050.

Moreover, according to the report, the cost of these three programs alone could jump from 8.4 percent of GDP today to 18.9 percent of GDP by 2050. Failing to curb the growth in these programs leaves us with three very unattractive and dangerous alternatives. The first would be to raise taxes dramatically. As we know, such a move would choke off economic growth and leave us vulnerable to economic recessions which would exacerbate rather than help the problem.

The second alternative is equally untenable--eliminate all other spending, eventually to include all discretionary spending. This, of course, is absurd since our defense, homeland security, and other vital spending is included in this category. The final alternative is to continue to allow the deficits to continue to build up as we try to keep on financing the growing debt with loans from other countries.

Therefore, our only real choice is to begin to slow down the growth in these programs. This conference reports does start us on this path.

However, I acknowledge this conference report is far from perfect. It retains some flaws from the Senate version of the bill, and it came back from conference with some new flaws.

That being said, I believe this legislation is a step in the right direction. The Medicare provisions are more in line with the Senate version, and overall it targets Medicare's resources to better serve our seniors and disabled. The conference report ensures that beneficiaries don't lose their doctors because of budget cuts, and it expands services while making significant budget savings in noncritical areas.

While I do not agree with everything in this bill, I am pleased that the legislation restores the stabilization fund for the Medicare Advantage regional PPOs and allows the Medicare Part B penalty to be waived for international missionaries. It also will expand the Program of All Inclusive Care for the Elderly, PACE, to beneficiaries living in rural areas. PACE offers alternative services to individuals who may need nursing home care but want to live at

home if possible. This provision will provide another important choice for long-term care services for beneficiaries in rural areas. I filed all three of these policies as amendments when the Finance Committee considered the budget reconciliation bill.

For Medicare beneficiaries this legislation encourages preventive care for seniors and the disabled. Some of the important provisions in this area include the following: preventive screening tests for abdominal aortic aneurysm; exemption for colorectal cancer screening tests from the Medicare deductible; a 1.6-percent update to the composite rate for end stage renal disease, ESRD, services in 2006; and an expansion of Medicare reimbursement for services at federally qualified health centers, FQHC, by allowing them to provide diabetes self-management training services and medical nutrition therapy services.

In addition, this legislation makes needed reforms to home health payments in order to reduce disparities in provider payment and improve quality and transparency. First, the bill calls for a 1-year, 5-percent add-on payment for home health agencies that serve rural beneficiaries which will help many home health agencies in Utah. Rural home health agencies have much lower Medicare margins than urban home health agencies, and as a Senator who represents a primarily rural State, I believe that this needs to be addressed. The legislation freezes home health payments in 2006. In its March 2005 report to Congress, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission recommended this freeze in home health payments because Medicare pays home health agencies approximately 17 percent more than it costs agencies to provide home health services. Finally, the legislation also provides financial incentives to home health agencies that report quality data beginning in 2007.

One of the most important provisions in this legislation protects physicians from a 4.4-percent scheduled reduction beginning on January 1, 2006 and, instead, allowed the 2005 payment rates to continue through 2006. I am still committed to fixing this problem once and for all, and I hope that we may accomplish this in 2006 since this issue will need to be addressed once again since physicians are estimated to continue to receive negative cuts of approximately 5 percent from 2006 to 2011. Congress needs to enact a long-term solution as quickly as possible.

With regard to therapy services, for years Congress has worked to find a permanent solution to the problem of overutilization of therapy services. Although I have consistently supported a moratorium on therapy caps, this bill leaves a January 2006 expiration of the moratorium in tact, and I am committed to continue encouraging my colleagues to reinstate this important moratorium.

Now, let me turn to Medicaid. This has been a tremendously successful program but also a very costly one. We have a responsibility to address the dramatic growth in spending, but I was not happy that some of the key provisions have not been considered thoroughly by the Senate. Given expressions of concern voiced to me by my constituents, I only reluctantly give my support to the overall measure.

I would have preferred the Senate language, which did not change the law with respect to beneficiary eligibility. That is why I will be working closely with Secretary Leavitt and other Cabinet-level officials to ensure Utah is treated fairly as this law is implemented.

I would like to take a couple of minutes to share my thoughts on some aspects of the Medicaid portion of this bill. One issue that was debated in both the House and the Senate was the real asset transfer rules. Under current law, Medicaid asset transfer rules are easily skirted--courses are offered to teach attorneys how to circumvent the law. This is plain wrong. The reforms in the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act will make it more difficult for these transfers to occur and will allow more Medicaid resources to go to those who are in genuine need.

Our current asset transfer policy is flawed. The policy not only allows for exploitation, it encourages it. The current statute has loopholes that allow wealthy seniors to qualify for Medicaid. Let me make one point clear--Medicaid exists to protect the most vulnerable, not the most wealthy.

We need a fair, equitable policy. We need to protect the Medicaid Program for those who need it most. The legislation before us today addresses this situation by closing the loopholes in Medicaid. First, it prevents seniors from intentionally protecting their assets--people should not be allowed to hide their money in order to receive Medicaid nursing home coverage. Second, the bill changes the lookback period as well as the penalty period. Today, an older American can shelter half of his or her assets the day before applying for Medicaid.

The conference report starts the penalty period clock when a senior applies for Medicaid, and the lookback period is changed from 3 years to 5 years. Currently, an older person will face a penalty if assets are transferred for the purposes of qualifying for Medicaid within 5 years of applying for Medicaid. This provision significantly strengthens the asset transfer policy.

The new law does not allow an individual with more than $500,000 in home equity to be able to qualify for Medicaid. It does provide State flexibility to increase the cap to $750,000. This is sound policy. Those with home equity over $500,000 should not take Medicaid money from those for whom the Medicaid Program was designed: low-income children, pregnant women, and individuals with disabilities. Also, the policy only applies to individuals. It does not apply to applicants who have a spouse or a dependent child at home. In theory, the State is supposed to be able to put a lien on that home anyway.

Finally, seniors who have a hardship can apply for a waiver. The policy strengthens protections for seniors seeking an undue hardship waiver beyond current law or the Senate-passed version. I don't want to make it harder for people who really need the Government's help. But I do want to prevent seniors from intentionally taking advantage of the system. We need to protect Medicaid for those who need it most.

I discussed this matter in great detail with the Utah Medicaid Director and was assured that, in my home State of Utah, individuals who are under suspicion for transferring assets inappropriately are always given the right to appeal if their request for Medicaid coverage is in question. I understand there are several States, such as Utah, who handle this matter in fair and thoughtful way.

The budget reconciliation conference agreement also makes existing Federal reimbursement rates for drugs more accurate. It makes the average manufacturer price, AMP, of drugs available to the public so that pharmacists and wholesalers will get lower prices through greater competition, and excludes prompt pay discounts paid to wholesalers from the new pharmacy reimbursement rates.

AMP is the average price at which manufacturers sell their drugs to wholesalers, but starting in 2007, the Federal Government will not pay more than 250 percent of the AMP of the lowest cost version of a generic drug. Under current law, the Federal upper limit is 150 percent of the lowest published price. The new payment rates are based on the existing rules governing generic drugs.

The AMP data will also be made available to States and the public. This will create more transparency and competition in drug pricing. CBO has estimated that transparency will help reduce drug costs by hundreds of millions of dollars. Competition and transparency will bring prices down for consumers and protect the taxpayer from needless waste.

The final bill also requires the Secretary to work with private companies that routinely monitor and track drug payment rates for private health plans. The Secretary will then be required to share this information, known as retail sales prices, with States. This will provide State officials with better information about actual market- based prices, such as the rates paid by the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plans pay for prescription drugs. All of this information will provide greater accountability and ensure that Medicaid is paying pharmacists fairly for all drugs, and I am pleased that these provisions were included in the legislation.

The Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act also contains important reforms that will provide Medicare beneficiaries, seniors, and the disabled with better options to manage their care. Under the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act, States will now be able to provide home and community-based services as an optional benefit to seniors, the disabled, persons with a developmental disability, mental retardation, or a related condition. Coverage of these services will allow more individuals to receive better health care and other assistance. These services will also mean that more persons can remain in their homes, without needing to go into nursing homes. These reforms will help reduce spending by allowing individuals to receive the kinds of care they want, in the settings they prefer, at prices far below what Medicaid usually pays for nursing home care. In addition, no one who currently is receiving care through an institution will be forced to leave that institution in order to receive community-based care.

The final conference report also will allow every State to establish a Long-Term Care Partnership Program. Long Term Care Partnership Programs allow individuals to protect a portion of their assets from Medicaid recoveries if they purchase long-term care insurance. Currently only four States (California, Connecticut, Indiana and New York) are allowed to have these programs. By expanding access to these programs, the new law will help create incentives for people to purchase long term-care insurance. Encouraging the purchase of long- term care insurance will mean that more people will be able to pay for their own nursing care, and fewer will have to rely on Medicaid as a safety net to meet their long-term care needs.

Another area that is addressed in this legislation is Medicaid beneficiary cost-sharing. There is a lot of misinformation about this provision, and I would like to explain this provision in more detail. Under current law, States may require cost-sharing but it is not enforceable. In other words, if a beneficiary does not pay his or her copayment, the health care provider is forced to absorb the beneficiary's copayment. This is why we have such difficulty encouraging providers to participate in the Medicaid Program. Many will not, and all Medicaid beneficiaries suffer as a result.

I believe that the conference report includes reasonable policy that allows States to ask beneficiaries over the poverty line to participate in the cost of their own care. Let me make one clarification--the House-passed legislation required States to impose cost-share requirements on beneficiaries with no income. I do not agree with that policy, and it is included in this bill.

A beneficiary who is above the poverty line may pay up to percent of his or her monthly income to the cost of their care, but that is only if the State decides to impose additional cost-sharing requirements. And let me assure my colleagues that no state is required to impose cost-sharing requirements on these beneficiaries. I will add that even the National Governors Association support reasonable responsible cost- sharing. In fact, Governors testified before the Senate Finance Committee earlier this year and told committee members that they support this policy.

I am aware that substantial concerns have been raised about the provision permitting States to provide Medicaid coverage to children under age 19 through ``benchmark'' or ``benchmark equivalent'' coverage. In short, some fear this language might abrogate the right of those children to receive Early Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Testing, EPSDT, benefits.

For the benefit of my colleagues, I will ask unanimous consent that a statement just issued by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administration, Mark McClellan, M.D., Ph.D., be printed in the Record

As Dr. McClellan has made quite clear, children through age 18 will continue to receive EPSDT. It is my hope this assurance will make many child advocates more comfortable with this bill.

With regard to the welfare portion of the conference report, I was disappointed to see Congress's efforts to reduce the budget contain limitations on welfare, childcare, and child support policy. These vital programs should have been reauthorized through the normal legislative process, not tucked away in a protected budget reconciliation bill which is designed to reduce the Federal deficit. The welfare, childcare, and child support language included in the budget reconciliation bill has almost nothing to do with reducing the deficit and everything to do with changing the rules of these important programs without proper legislative scrutiny or debate.

While I am completely frustrated with the Senate's inability to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, legislation using the normal legislative process, I do not believe it is in the best interest of the participants of these programs to include sweeping policy changes in a bill designed to reduce the deficit.

However, I am appreciative of Chairman Grassley's efforts to ensure that childcare funding was increased. Although the increase is limited to $1 billion over the next 5 years, I am hopeful we will be able to secure even larger increases in childcare funding in the near future. Providing quality childcare to low-income families is crucial when we are scrambling to help families become self-sufficient, and I am committed to ensuring the Federal Government continues to help these children and families.

As well, I am appreciative of the chairman's efforts to secure 3 years of supplement TANF grants. The State of Utah has been a large beneficiary of these grants, and as we work to meet the stricter TANF work requirements outlined in this bill, we will continue to have supplemental grants from HHS to help us train and prepare our TANF recipients.

Now I would like to discuss the portion of the deficit reduction conference report that addresses the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, which is commonly refereed to as the Byrd amendment. The Byrd amendment amended the Tariff Act of 1930 to require that duties, collected as a result of antidumping and countervailing duty laws, be distributed to the affected entities. At the time it was introduced, I supported this measure as a commonsense proposal.

However, since that time, the World Trade Organization has allowed our trading partners to impose tariffs on various U.S. goods, and the Byrd amendment has gone from a commonsense solution to an impediment to U.S. companies' ability to sell their goods abroad.

First, I must reemphasize my strong support for laws that not only make trade free but fair. Accordingly, I have spoken directly to the Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez, and United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Rob Portman, about the vital importance of vigorous enforcement of our trade laws.

Though I have never and will never advocate modifying our laws because of outside pressure, American companies and employees in Utah and all over the country have come to me and asked for my help in repealing the Byrd amendment. Currently, the United States is negotiating, as part of the Doha Round talks, a new trade regime in which international markets would become even more open to U.S. goods and services. If completely successful, the Institute for International Economics estimates that American households could gain as much as an additional $5,000 per year. If today's international trade barriers were reduced by just a third, the average American family of four would enjoy $2,500 per year in additional income, according to a University of Michigan study.

Freer trade helps more than just Americans. The poorest countries stand to gain considerably. According to a Center for Global Development study, a successful conclusion to the Doha Round would result in an additional $200 billion flowing to developing nations, reducing poverty and economic hardship. Not to mention, the Institute for International Economics estimates that trade liberalization over the last 50 years has brought an additional $10,000 per year to the typical American household.

In order to achieve our objectives in the Doha Round, many of our trading partners will be required to make substantial concessions on import duties and subsidies. However, those who oppose our noble goals could use our refusal to repeal the Byrd amendment as

a means to hinder our negotiating strategy. Simply put, these opponents will state that if the United States cannot follow the existing rules of trade, rules which our Nation largely crafted and implemented, how can we be trusted if most trade barriers are repealed?

Therefore, as I said before, I admire the Byrd amendment's commonsense approach, but I believe under the present circumstances the time has come for this legislation to be modified, in order to strengthen the ability of our Nation to achieve the larger goal of bringing down foreign barriers to U.S. goods and services.

Therefore, I support the changes incorporated in the Deficit Reduction Conference Report. This legislation achieves a fair compromise by repealing the Byrd amendment; however, at the same it would permit Byrd amendment payments to U.S. companies through October 1, 2007. This should provide an adequate time for companies to plan for the future while preserving a strong negotiating position for U.S. interests.

Despite its shortcomings in some areas, this reconciliation package contains several very important provisions in the intellectual property area that benefit the Nation and my home State of Utah.

I am pleased that a hard date for the transition from analog to digital television was included in the final package. This important provision will free up crucial radio spectrum that is currently occupied by broadcaster's analog television signals. Although the digital transition inevitably resolves a number of difficult issues, it also has several important benefits. It is my understanding that over $7 billion of the proceeds from the eventual auction of spectrum licenses is expected to be used for deficit reduction. Perhaps more importantly, the transition will provide both the necessary funding and available spectrum for public safety officials and emergency personnel across the country to upgrade their communications infrastructure. And, finally, a portion of the anticipated proceeds will be used for various programs intended to minimize any negative financial impact on consumers, rural broadcasters, and others affected by the transition.

I am particularly pleased that a provision setting aside a small fraction of the proceeds to help fund the upgrade of television translator stations was included. This provision responds to a serious concern that I have had regarding the financial viability of upgrading the network of translator stations across Utah that are used to serve many of the rural communities in my home State. In the context of the debate over the digital transition, it came to my attention that upgrading these translators, which retransmit television signals to communities beyond the reach of the primary broadcast towers, would impose a substantial--and disproportionate--financial burden on broadcasters that were primarily located in mountainous western States. Due to the vast area covered by the Salt Lake City television market and the high concentration of translator stations in the State, there was a substantial concern that upgrading the cost of these translators would be prohibitive. The approach taken in the reconciliation package is similar to the proposal contained in S. 1600, which I cosponsored with Senator Snowe, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank Senators Snowe, Stevens, and Inouye--and their respective staffs--for their help on this issue.

As with other portions of this bill, there are aspects to the education provisions I support and others I don't. However, I am pleased overall with the significant amount of savings while still allowing for spending on important programs.

The major area of savings comes from the reduction in corporate lender profits on student loans, in the form of a requirement that lenders rebate the Federal Government the difference between the borrower rate and the lender rate when the borrower rate exceeds the lender rate. In addition, guaranty agencies are required to deposit 1 percent of their collections in the Federal Reserve Fund; there is a reduction of borrower origination fees by .50 percent for each award, and there is an elimination of the recycling of 9.5 percent loans.

Even with these much needed savings, I disagreed with fixing the interest rate for undergraduate and graduate nonconsolidation borrowing at 6.8 percent, preferring a choice of a fixed or variable rate.

However, I am very pleased with increasing grant aid for students studying math and science, named SMART grants. I was involved in the original creation of the SMART Grants Program through my work on the HELP Committee. These grants will give first year students awards of $700 and $1,300 for second year students, provided they have completed rigorous programs at the secondary level. Third and fourth year students may receive up to $4,000 in grant aid if they major in math, science, or foreign language.

I know these programs will give Utah students, particularly those of low or moderate means, greater access to a college education and will boost our local and national economy as we seek to meet the demands of the 21st century workforce.

Again, this legislation is not perfect. It is not a perfect answer to several of the social policy problems that confront our Nation. It is not a perfect answer to the growing Federal budget deficit either. It is not Draconian and it is not mean-hearted. This deficit reduction conference report is merely a good first step in stemming the tide of red ink that runs down the pages of the Federal budget, stealing taxpayer dollars to service a monstrous Federal debt and robbing our children of a safe and secure financial future. For these important and self evident reasons, I support this bill.

I ask unanimous consent the statement issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administration to which I referred earlier be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it has been said that a great test of morality is what people do when they have power. The fast-track budget reconciliation rules mean that the majority party can essentially do whatever it wants in a reconciliation bill if they act in lockstep. The reason is simple. Reconciliation debates in the Senate can only last 20 hours and the final version of the bill--a reconciliation conference report--only can be debated for 10 hours.

The majority party can even orchestrate a single meeting with conferees and immediately gavel it over almost when it starts, doing everything behind-the-scenes with no consultation and without sharing drafts of even sweeping policy changes in proposed major laws.

They not only can do such things, they just did them.

But let me start at the beginning. The President's budget proposal for programs under the oversight of the Judiciary Committee, issued in February of this year, called for a user fee on the manufacture and importation of gunpowder and other explosives of two cents per pound. The President requested that Congress enact these user fees--some called it a tax--to raise $600 million over the next five years. Because of that White House proposal on gunpowder and other explosives, the budget resolution of the other body called for the Judiciary Committee to meet a target of $600 million.

The Senate-passed budget resolution did not require any cuts to be made by the Judiciary Committee. This is the usual approach for the Judiciary Committee since the Committee controls few, yet very important, mandatory spending programs. For example, it is difficult to make significant reductions to mandatory programs, including: pensions for U.S. Judges; the Crime Victim's Trust Fund; salaries of U.S. Marshals; the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund; the Copyright Owners' Fund; the diversion control fee account of the Drug Enforcement Agency; border patrol salaries and expenses; the assets forfeiture fund for U.S. Marshals, and other sources. It is also difficult to increase Patent and Trademark Office fees or Copyright Office fees since there is not a compelling reason to do so.

In the end, in order to comply with the budget resolution, the Judiciary Committee of the Senate and the Judiciary Committee of the other body were required to come up with $300 million in revenue or to make $300 million in cuts.

The first casualty in this process was the White House proposal to tax gunpowder and other explosives. There was little support by the majority party for even making half the President's proposed increases in the gunpowder tax. Many other alternatives were considered by the majority party.

Finally, a proposal was worked out in the Judiciary Committee that had my support, and the strong support of universities and many business leaders. For example, the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Motorola, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, Texas Instruments, Intel, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Qualcomm, for high-tech workers. The House also included immigration fees in their proposal.

However, after an aborted conference meeting which started at 9 p.m. last Friday night, and ended a few minutes later, what has the Majority party proposed as a compromise on the immigration fees? They came up with increasing fees on all citizens to get into federal courts and into bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy fee increase raises some ironies. The increase in fees for citizens trying to seek judicial relief narrows access to courts.

So we have gone from the President's proposal to tax gunpowder and other explosives and mysteriously ended up with a tax on citizens to get into federal court and bankruptcy court. Nevertheless, the majority party--as long as they are in lockstep together--has nearly absolute power in a reconciliation bill that enjoys only limited debate. History will record what they have done with that power.

What is especially unfortunate is that the version of the reconciliation bill reported out by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and approved by the full Senate by unanimous consent to the Budget Reconciliation Act, was a bipartisan amendment offered by Senator Specter and myself to allocate the extra $278,000,000 in revenue provided from the Judiciary Committee markup on reconciliation to supplement funding that is demonstrably needed for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Fund, programs authorized by the Justice For All Act, and a Copyright Royalty Judges Program.

The Judiciary Committee markup on its reconciliation title provided $278,000,000 more in revenue than was mandated by the Budget Resolution instructions.

The Specter-Leahy Senate proposal approved by the full Senate--would have provided $60,000,000 over the next five years for such initiatives as the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program, to help law enforcement agencies purchase or replace body armor for their rank-and-file officers.

Recently, concerns over body armor safety surfaced when a Pennsylvania police officer was shot and critically wounded through his new vest outfitted with a material called Zylon, which is a registered trademark. The Justice Department has since announced that Zylon fails to provide the intended level of ballistic resistance.

Unfortunately, an estimated 200,000 vests outfitted with that material have been purchased--many with Bulletproof Vest Partnership funds--and now must be replaced. Law enforcement agencies nationwide are struggling to find the funds necessary to replace defective vests with ones that will actually stop bullets and save lives. Our Senate Judiciary provisions would have funded those efforts. Unfortunately, the majority party dropped this language.

Our Senate Judiciary language--approved by the full Senate--also provided more than $216,000,000 for programs authorized by the Justice For All Act of 2004, a landmark law that enhances protections for victims of Federal crimes, increases Federal resources available to State and local governments to combat crimes with DNA technology, and provides safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions and executions.

The Senate Judiciary Committee language also would have funded training of criminal justice and medical personnel in the use of DNA evidence, including evidence for post-conviction DNA testing. It would have promoted the use of DNA technology to identify missing persons. With these funds, State and local authorities would have been better able to implement and enforce crime victims' rights laws, including Federal victim and witness assistance programs.

State and local governments would have been able to apply for grants to develop and implement victim notification systems to share information on criminal proceedings in a timely and efficient manner. That language would have helped improve the quality of legal representation provided to both indigent defendants and the public in State capital cases.

Last, but certainly not least, our amendment provided $6,500,000 over five years for the Copyright Royalty Judges Program at the Library of Congress. The Copyright Royalty Distribution Reform Act of 2004 created a new program in the Library to replace most of the current statutory responsibilities of the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels program. The Copyright Royalty Judges Program was supposed to determine distributions of royalties that are disputed and set or adjust royalty rates, terms and conditions, with the exception of satellite carriers' compulsory licenses. The Senate-passed language would have helped pay the salaries and related expenses of the three royalty judges and three administrative staff required by law to support this program.

Unfortunately, instead of raising more funds than we needed through widely supported increases in immigration fees and using them for these law-enforcement and other programs we are instead going to increase the cost of access to federal courts and not fund any of these other priorities.

What may be the most troubling aspect of this abuse of power is that by substantially increasing fees to get

into federal courts the majority party raised $253 million more in revenue than it needed to meet the reconciliation target. That means that all the above priorities in the Senate-passed bill including bulletproof vests for law enforcement, use of DNA technology to identify missing persons, and better enforcement of crime victims' rights laws could have been included at only slightly reduced levels of support.

The Republican Congress has missed a great opportunity in this abuse of power.

Mr. President, I also must express my opposition to the irresponsible domestic budget policy that has been forwarded by the majority party. The Senate is being asked to approve spending and budget bills that make deep cuts to programs that serve some of our country's neediest citizens. A time of year typically signified by wishes of goodwill towards all, it is difficult to be anything but outraged by this attack on critical components of our social safety net.

While many in the majority party have claimed that these bills are needed in order to reduce the deficit, with the knowledge that the leadership will make passing massive tax cuts benefiting some of the wealthiest among us a priority during the next session, this argument is simply disingenuous.

Instead of putting the country on the road to fiscal security, these bills expose the agenda of the majority that blatantly undermines American families and make clear where the priorities of the majority party lie. It is not with the family that relies on Medicaid for their health insurance, the student who, without student aid, cannot afford to attend college, or the mother who needs childcare so that she can go to work and put food on the table for her family. Nor is it with the single mother who has been abandoned without child support, the grandparent raising their grandchild on a fixed income, or the worker who has lost his or her job and is trying to be retrained.

No, the priorities of this majority party consistently lie with the powerful special interests and big drug companies. At every opportunity the Republican leadership has had to choose between supporting the American people or wealthy corporate interests, and they have sided with the corporate interests. Even by the standards of this first session of the 109th Congress, with the consistent erosion of consumer protections and support for American working families, these bills sink to new lows. As a result, dozens of health, education, labor, and human services programs will be cut and millions of people who rely on these programs will suffer.

Some of the most egregious policies in these bills expose the disparity between the treatment of big drug companies and those individuals who must rely on Medicaid as their primary form of health care. With numerous options on the table, the Republican leadership chose to use the budget reconciliation bill to increase Medicaid co- payments and premiums, potentially eliminated federal standards for comprehensive Medicaid care, and created highly restrictive rules governing the transfer of assets for those who require care in a nursing home. Rather than do away with an unnecessary multi-billion dollar slush fund for insurers and drug companies, a small group of Congressional budget writers has chosen to freeze home health payments that ensure seniors are able to receive care in the comfort of their own homes.

In addition, this year's Labor, Health and Human Services, Labor-HHS, appropriations bill shortchanges our country's rural health programs. For instance, the bill eliminates five programs, including funding for Rural EMS and Health Education Training Centers, which are critical to the fragile network of the rural health care infrastructure.

One of the most disappointing aspects of the Labor-HHS Bill was the treatment of the National Institutes of Health, NIH. Not since 1970 has the NIH been provided an increase as small as the one contained in this bill. As a result, the vital medical research being done around the country, including in my home state at the University of Vermont, will suffer. The search for cures to innumerable diseases will be slowed and foreign competitors will be given a chance to exploit our short- sightedness.

Not only will this Congress take the step of cutting education for the first time in ten years, these will be the biggest cuts in history to student loan programs. A remarkable $12.7 billion will be cut from student aid programs so that there will be no increase to the Pell Grant for an astonishing fourth year in a row. While making changes to eliminate loopholes in student loan lending laws, it appears that small lenders that specialize in providing comprehensive loan counseling to students have been given short-shrift. It appears that from almost every angle, students are assaulted by these policies.

For those education programs that are lucky enough to escape the knife, they will either be frozen or given minimal increases. I am curious to know how our Nation's schools can be expected to meet and exceed the standards set forth in the No Child Left Behind Act, when Congress is content to slash funding by three percent, leaving these programs to sink more than $13 billion below their authorized levels. It has been almost 5 years since Congress passed this legislation, and we have consistently failed to meet our commitment to students, parents and teachers.

In what is becoming a hallmark of this Republican leadership, these conference reports are loaded down with controversial legislation approved by neither body. Despite bipartisan support for legislation approved by the Senate Finance Committee earlier this year, Senators are being asked to approve a five-year reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program that would impose strict new working requirements with only nominal new funding for child care support. At the same time Congress asks single mothers to work longer hours, it cuts money for child support enforcement, dollars that are used to track down deadbeat dads.

Though it is a sad commentary on the current state of affairs when one of the lone bright spots for health and human service programs is that this bill includes no cuts to the Food Stamp program, I would be remiss if I did not mention my appreciation that this program remained unscathed. While protecting Food Stamps should be hailed as a victory, the Community Food and Nutrition Program, a modestly sized program that helps support anti-hunger advocacy groups, was not so fortunate. The work being done on the local levels by these groups is extremely important, and it is my hope that these funds will be restored next year.

The programs and services I have mentioned are but a few of the dozens of cuts that will negatively impact families across the country. As we usher out the final days of 2005 and the 1st Session of the 109th Congress, I am saddened that the last actions of this body will be to pass such harmful bills. After more than 30 years in the Senate, I know that we can do better and it is my sincere hope that when we return next year, we will reverse the wayward direction set by such policies and implemented by such legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, but I want to take a few minutes to discuss a specific aspect of that bill--the reauthorization of the welfare reform law. As many of my colleagues have heard me say, I believe the 1996 welfare reform law is one of the great legislative successes during my time in the U.S. Senate. Since the bi11's enactment, welfare caseloads have been cut in half, more than 7 million individuals and 2 million families have exchanged a welfare check for a paycheck, and welfare reform has lifted 2.3 million children out of poverty.

We must build upon this success to move the 2 million families that remain on welfare into the workforce by ending the Practice of simply extending the program and passing a legislative reauthorization of the welfare reform law. On January 24, 2005, I introduced S.6, the MORE Act, that included a reauthorization of TANF. A bipartisan reauthorization bill, S. 667, passed the Senate Finance Committee with my support on March 9, 2005. While I continue to believe that such reauthorization would have been best suited by moving the Senate Finance Committee reported bill, S. 667, under regular order; we unfortunately have been unable to reach an agreement with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to bring this bill to the floor.

After over 3 years of trying to move forward on this reauthorization, our colleagues in the House have included TANF reauthorization in their budget reconciliation bill. Going into this process, I was concerned that some provisions in the House legislation regarding work hours, participation rates, child support enforcement and access to child care did not strike the appropriate balance needed to meet the needs of these families as they strive to move from welfare to work. I was pleased that the House had included provisions to encourage healthy marriages, promote responsible fatherhood, and support strong families. At the end of the day, the Deficit Reduction Act is not my preferred vehicle, but I am glad we are making some improvements in the program without upsetting the necessary balance.

The conference report reauthorizes the welfare program--the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program or TANF--through fiscal year 2010 at its current funding level of $16.9 billion annually. The bill provides an additional $1 billion for child care over 5 years for a total of $2.917 billion annually. While I understand and have heard from many that they want a higher amount for child care, this bill will increase the investment in child care for working families by $1 billion, and if we don't do this bill there will be no increase in child care at all. It is important to get this increase done this year.

I am very pleased that the conference report provides $100 million annually for healthy marriage promotion, and $50 million annually for the promotion of responsible fatherhood. The need for these programs is clear. Children growing up in married, two-parent homes are less likely to be victims of abuse, engage in high risk behaviors, and suffer from emotional problems. Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, five times more likely to be poor, and at least two to three times more likely to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior than their peers who live with both parents.

However the benefits are also clear. Married families are 5 times less likely to be in poverty than are single-parent families. Adults benefit from marriage through lower mortality rates, better health, greater financial well-being, less suicide, greater happiness, and suffer less violence by intimate partners. Children with involved, loving fathers are significantly more likely to do well in school, have healthy self-esteem, exhibit empathy and pro-social behavior, and avoid high-risk behaviors such as drug use, truancy, and criminal activity compared to children who have uninvolved fathers. These grants can be used to provide information on the value of marriage, conflict resolution, relationship skills and financial management. Increasing healthy two-parent marriages is a proven means to reduce poverty and improve child well-being.

This conference report also makes modest changes in the implementation of the TANF program. First, it updates work participation rates. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act, P.L. 104-193, contemplated that all states would meet a 50-percent participation rate by 2002. Because the current caseload reduction credit is based on the 1995 caseload level, most States--including my home State of Pennsylvania--have an actual participation rate standard of zero. States currently achieve their credit because of their ability to count a decade-old caseload decline. The conference report updates the credit to the more relevant date of 2005, thereby ensuring that the intent of the 1996 welfare reform act is realized.

The bill also closes a loophole on work participation rates. To avoid having to meet caseload requirements, some states set up separate programs and moved their harder-to-place clients to those programs to avoid the work requirements. The bill removes the ability to game the system by including these separate state programs in the work calculation, closing a loophole.

I have seen a number of reports that indicate that this bill changes work requirements, narrows what is considered work, et cetera. I want to be clear that this bill maintains the current work requirements. The bill does not change the current-law standard of 30 hours and maintains the separate 20-hour standard for adults with a child six years of age and under. It also maintains current-law activities that count as work, including allowing 12 months for education and training. The measure leaves it to the states to determine whether activities may be counted as work activities, and how to count and verify reported hours of work.

I have heard a number of my colleagues say that this bill ``cuts'' money from child support enforcement. I hope they go back and read the bill. The changes in child support actually increase child support enforcement and gets support to the families. The conference report includes provisions that increase States' ability to improve child support collection. Under current law, much of the child support that is owed to families on welfare is assigned to the State. The conference agreement would allow $423 million owed to families on welfare and those who have left welfare to go directly to those families--a significant improvement over current law.

The supposed ``cut'' is a restoration of the current state-matching requirement. Currently, States are required to match certain Federal funds with state funds, showing a State investment in the child support enforcement program. However, States have been taking Federal funds from one grant and then using them as the ``Federal'' matching funds rather than using State funds. The conference report prevents States from ``double dipping'' by using Federal funds to draw down additional matching federal funds for child support enforcement.

Additionally, the conference report provides $100 million for grants to ensure that the safety, permanence and well-being needs of children are met in a timely manner. The funds may also be used for the training of judges, attorneys, and other legal personnel in child welfare cases.

The measure also provides an increase of $200 million for the Safe and Stable Families program. The purpose of this program is to enable States to develop, expand or operate coordinated programs of community- based family support services for family preservation services, family reunification services, and adoption promotion.

A number of organizations may have misunderstood the changes relating to the alleged ``cuts'' in foster care. There are two provisions relating to foster care that might have led to this misperception, so let me speak on them for a minute.

First, the conference agreement restores long-standing foster care eligibility criteria relating to the Rosales v. Thompson decision. That decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals broadened eligibility for Federal foster care benefits to include almost every child in foster care in the nine affected States--California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska and Hawaii--instead of only children removed from low-income homes that TANF is intended to help. The conference agreement again ensures the same policy applies nationwide. As this decision did not apply in Pennsylvania, this change does not affect my home State.

Second, the bill limits the amount of administrative expenses when States are slow to place children in safe and suitable situations. I should be clear that this proposal does not reduce foster care benefits because the funds in question do not support payments to families. Instead, the proposal addresses how much Federal funding States may claim to operate their foster care programs and under what circumstances Federal funding may be claimed. Current law requires the placement of a child in a licensed foster family home or a child care institution as a condition of eligibility for federal foster care maintenance payments. As part of meeting this duty, States may make certain administrative claims on behalf of ``candidates'' for federal foster care. ``Candidates'' are children who have not been removed from their homes but are at imminent risk of removal.

The proposal allows the State to claim Federal administrative funds for up to 12 months while children are ``candidates'' for Federal foster care and the State is working to license the home as safe and appropriate for the child. In January 2005, the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, issued a proposed regulation making this change. So States have been on notice that this issue was of concern for almost a year. Fourteen States have indicated that they would be affected by the proposed regulation; however Pennsylvania was not one of those States.

In summary, millions of our fellow citizens have replaced the dependency on government handouts with the dignity and opportunity of work. Children and families will now have opportunities to strengthen their families through programs to support marriage and responsible fatherhood. Thousands of children will have access to childcare through the $1 billion in new funding. And we have strengthened our child welfare programs. On balance, I think the reconciliation bill, as it relates to welfare reform, is a step in the right direction. I remain committed to ensuring that work remains a gateway to opportunity for all Americans and urge my colleagues to support passage of S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

Mr. President, the legislation before us suggests that it is deficit reduction. There are three chapters to this book on reconciliation. You have to read all three chapters to understand the meaning of the book. The first chapter provides spending cuts of $40 billion over 5 years. Those spending cuts disproportionately take from those who have the least among us. Chapter 2 provides $70 billion of tax cuts. So the combined effect of chapters 1 and 2 is not to reduce the deficit, it increases the deficit. And the tax cuts give to those who have the most among us.

The Chaplain, in his prayer this morning, asked us to lead lives that will be living sermons--lives that will be living sermons. I do not know of any church that teaches to take from those who have the least among us to give to those who have the most among us.

The third chapter in this book provides for a debt limit increase of $781 billion--one of the largest increases in the debt of our country, in the history of our country.

This first chapter, as I have indicated, contains $40 billion of spending cuts over 5 years. But the second chapter will cut taxes by $70 billion over that same period. The net result is not deficit reduction; it is an increase in the deficit.

If we are to focus just on this first chapter, and put it into perspective, here is what we see: spending cuts of $40 billion. It is almost indecipherable how much that is in relationship to what we will be spending over the next 5 years. We will be spending $14.3 trillion over the next 5 years. So our colleagues on the other side have managed to cut one three-hundred fiftieth--one three-hundred fiftieth--of the spending. But then in chapter 2 they are going to come here and eliminate that deficit reduction by the tax cuts--again, spending reductions from those who have the least among us to give to those who have the most among us. And the extraordinary irony of all of this is that all of this--if this is implemented, the budget that is being passed--is building a wall of debt that is unprecedented in the history of our country.

If this budget is actually implemented over the next 5 years, it will increase the debt of our country from $7.9 trillion to $11.3 trillion. This is not just my estimate, this is the estimate of the people who have written this package.

This is from their own document. They say the debt of the country will increase each and every year by over $600 billion. This is before the baby boomers retire. If you like deficits and debt, if you want to pass on a massive debt to our children, this is your chance. Vote for this package.

It took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up a trillion dollars of external debt, debt held by foreigners. This President has more than doubled that amount in 5 years. This is going in the wrong direction. The result is, we now owe Japan over $680 billion. We owe China almost $250 billion. We owe the ``Caribbean Banking Centers'' more than $100 billion.

In addition to the explosion of deficits and debt, these provisions in this chapter of the book are unfair to those who have the least among us: Medicaid cuts targeting low-income beneficiaries, child support enforcement cuts, foster care cuts, on and on it goes. The spending cuts are being done to make room for more tax cuts. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas told a group of GOP lobbyists the spending cuts are necessary to make room for the tax-cutting legislation.

I will be making points of order against this bill because we believe this bill has violated the rules of this body in instance after instance after instance, repeated violations of the rules. At the appropriate time, I will bring a point of order.

I conclude as I began: This legislation, taken as a whole, all of the chapters of reconciliation, will increase the deficit and debt of our country, will have one of the largest increases in debt, $781 billion, in our Nation's history. In addition to that, this has the wrong priorities, taking from the least among us to give to those who have the most among us. That is wrong.

I thank the Chair.

Has the Senator yielded?

Mr. President, could the Chair advise us, what is the parliamentary circumstance we confront? My understanding is I am to be recognized to make a point of order at this point.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, this bill contains many violations of the rules. We are here because the majority insisted on ramming through bad legislation at the last moment with little or no public scrutiny. This 774-page bill was written behind closed doors with no input from the minority. It was filed in the dead of night and voted on in the House at the crack of dawn. Then House Members left town.

Let's remember that reconciliation is a special parliamentary process that allows legislation to be passed with fast-track procedures that restrict a Senator's right to debate and amend. Because of these fast- track procedures, the Byrd rule was adopted to prohibit extraneous, nonbudget-related provisions from being included.

The points of order that I am raising are all violations of the Byrd rule. I now raise these three points of order:

One, striking the Medicaid medical liability provision, which allows hospitals to deny treatment to low-income individuals who are unable to pay. Not only is the majority raising copayments on low-income Medicaid beneficiaries, but they are shielding hospitals from medical liability if they refuse to treat those low-income people who are unable to pay. That is wrong.

Two, striking the foster care provision that would prohibit grandparents from receiving foster care payments. The conference report includes a provision to overturn a Ninth Circuit Court case that allowed grandparents with limited incomes to receive foster care payments when parenting vulnerable children. That is as mean spirited as it is ill-conceived. We know that placing foster kids with their grandparents puts them in the most stable and healthy environment. Prohibiting support for grandparents who take in foster children is wrong.

Three, I am also raising points of order against reports focusing on policy matters that do not belong in a reconciliation bill. These reports have no budgetary effect whatsoever and should not be here.

I hope my colleagues will support these points of order so we can send this bill back to House. Let's use this opportunity to create a better product for the American people.

Mr. President, I raise the point of order pursuant----

Let me conclude first.

That is fine.

Mr. President, might I inquire, on the other three points of order that I have raised, would the Chair rule that those points of order are in fact in order and appropriate?

Yes.

I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague. We have worked in a professional and cooperative way. I thank the Chairman for his inquiry.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, some of these matters are technical matters. But we have rules in this body for a reason. This legislation has many violations of the rules. I have chosen a few to raise today. Why? Because, colleagues, we could be voting all day on my points of order against this bill. I have tried to reduce it to one vote to accommodate colleagues. I could be here raising 12 or 15 points of order and ask for a vote on every single one of them. I have not done that. Yes, some of these matters are technical, but they are because we have rules.

I would say that the question of Medicaid liability is not a technicality. This is a question that allows hospitals to deny treatment to low-income individuals who are unable to pay. Not only is the majority raising copayments on low-income Medicaid beneficiaries, but they are shielding hospitals from medical liability if they refuse to treat those low-income people who are unable to pay. That is wrong.

Let me just say, on the foster care matter, we have a difference with the Parliamentarian. I believe there is a violation.

Again, I believe the foster care question that prohibits grandparents from receiving foster care payments is also well taken, but we understand there is a difference.

I raise the point of order pursuant to section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 against section 5001(b)(3) and section 5001(b)(4) of the conference report because those provisions of title V regarding Medicaid produce no budgetary changes in outlays or revenues; and pursuant to section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 against section 7404 regarding foster care, and the portion of section 6043 beginning on page 92, line 19, through page 93, line 2, which relates to the negligent standard for hospitals and physicians who treat Medicaid patients because any changes in outlays or revenues associated with those two provisions are merely incidental to the nonbudgetary components of those provisions.

I hope my colleagues will vote to sustain this point of order.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, could we have order in the Chamber?

Mr. President, it is my understanding I would now have the right to offer a second point of order.

Has the Chair ruled on the point of order?

I thank the Chair. I now ask if it is in order that I would offer a second point of order under the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. President, colleagues, I see no need to ask colleagues to cast another vote. Therefore, I will withhold on the second point of order and we could go right to passage of the reconciliation conference report.