Veterans Road to Health Care Act of 2005

Mr. President, I rise today to join Chairman Grassley in introducing the Hospital Fair Competition Act of 2005.

This bill, based primarily on recommendations of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), will improve the accuracy of Medicare's inpatient hospital prospective payment system (PPS); prevent the establishment of new specialty hospitals to which physician-owners can self-

refer, while allowing existing physician-owned specialty hospitals to continue with restrictions; and allow ``gainsharing'' arrangements to foster improved physician-hospital efficiency. This legislation is important for patients, taxpayers, and the Medicare program, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

About 17 months ago, Congress passed the Medicare Modernization Act-- the MMA. This 400-page bill included many important provisions, including long-awaited outpatient drug benefits under Medicare.

The MMA also included a small provision--Section 507--related to the construction of physician-owned specialty hospitals. These facilities specialize in cardiac, orthopedic or general surgical care, and are partly- or wholly-owned by physicians. The provision was a response to growing concerns over physician self-referral, and placed a moratorium on the construction of new, physician-owned specialty hospitals, while ``grandfathering'' existing facilities and those in development.

Having reviewed several independent analyses on this issue, I believe Congress was right to place a moratorium on specialty hospital construction. And I also believe that moratorium should effectively be extended permanently, while allowing existing facilities to continue operating in their current capacity.

Some view specialty hospitals as innovative, focused factories for high-quality, specialized care. Advocates for these facilities say that by focusing on a limited number of services, specialty hospitals provide excellent care at a good price, while adding competition to the health care marketplace.

Others say specialty hospitals flourish because they exploit a Medicare loophole allowing physician-owners to select patients who are healthier and, therefore, more profitable.

For my part, I don't want to stand in the way of innovation or competition. For example, I'm glad that Congress brought innovation to Medicare in the form of outpatient drug benefits. That was long overdue.

And hospitals and physicians should work together in innovative ways to improve efficiency in health care. The U.S. spends twice as much--or more--per-person on health care compared to any other developed country. And yet, our health outcomes are worse than theirs. We should get a better bang for our health-care buck, and we can take steps to that end by encouraging quality and accountability in health care.

That's why I am pushing to advance incentives for quality improvement in Medicare, so patients--and taxpayers--get the most for their money. I introduced legislation last year to require that Medicare pay dialysis providers and Medicare managed care plans based on the quality of care they provide. And I am working on legislation to extend these principles of paying for quality to other parts of Medicare.

As for competition, I'm all for it--as long as it's carried out on a level playing field. But when it comes to physician ownership of specialty hospitals, I'm not convinced the playing field is level. That's because physicians alone choose where patients go on the playing field--either to community hospitals or specialty hospitals. Some liken physician-owners of specialty hospitals to coaches who choose the starting lineup for both teams--in this case, the specialty hospital team and the community hospital team.

And for the third time, a Federal agency has told us that the healthiest teams, that is, the most profitable patients, end up at physician-owned specialty hospitals.

In 2003, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that, by and large, specialty hospitals care for relatively healthier patients than their community hospital counterparts. GAO surveyed 25 specialty hospitals, and found that 21 of the 25 had a less acute mix patients than community hospitals. GAO determined that of the hospitals studied, 17 percent cardiac patients seen by specialty hospitals could be classified as severe cases, compared with 22 percent in general hospitals. And about 5 percent of orthopedic cases in specialty hospitals were severe, compared with 8 percent in community hospitals.

Earlier this year, on March 8, MedPAC issued its MMA-mandated report on specialty hospitals, and arrived at findings similar to those of the GAO. MedPAC found that despite shorter lengths of stay, physician-owned specialty hospitals are not more cost efficient than community hospitals. MedPAC found that specialty hospitals tend to treat lower shares of Medicaid patients than community hospitals. And, just as GAO did, MedPAC found that specialty hospitals treat patients who are generally less sick--and therefore, more profitable--compared to community hospitals.

And while the Department of Health and Human Services has not officially issued its MMA-mandated report on the topic--but is expected to shortly--HHS reported on March 8 that, based on the small number of facilities it studied, specialty hospitals tend to care for a healthier patient population than their community hospital counterparts.

I believe the phenomenon of specialty hospitals treating healthier patients is the result of a loophole in the Stark self-referral law. This loophole--related to the ``whole hospital exception''--is one that should be closed. If it is not closed, Congress will effectively sanction the practice of physician self-referral that has been prohibited for years.

In 1989, the HHS Inspector General reported that patients of referring physicians who owned or invested in independent clinical labs received 45% more lab services than Medicare patients in general.

In 1992, a study found that physical therapy visits per patient were 39% to 45% higher in facilities with physician ownership compared to those without. In short, the authors of the study found that utilization and charges per-patient were higher when facilities were owned by physicians with an ownership interest.

In response to these studies and others like them, Congress passed the Stark laws, to prevent physician self-referral, first in the area of clinical labs, and subsequently in 10 other areas, including physical therapy and certain imaging procedures.

But the Stark laws did not address the issue of physician self- referral to specialty hospitals. In part, that's because there weren't many specialty hospitals at the time. As the GAO pointed out in its 2003 report, the vast majority of specialty hospitals were built in 1992 or later.

Instead, the Stark law included a provision that has come to be known as the ``whole hospital exception.'' While the Stark law prohibits physicians with ownership interest in only a hospital department from referring patients to that department, the law does allow physicians to refer to a facility they partially own, under two conditions. First, the physician must have admitting privileges in that hospital. Second, the physician must have a financial interest in the ``whole hospital,'' not just a department of the hospital.

As the GAO explained in 2003:

``The premise [of the whole hospital exception] is that any

referral or decision made by a physician who has a stake in

an entire hospital would produce little personal economic

gain because hospitals tend to provide a diverse and large

group of services. However, the Stark law does prohibit

physicians who have ownership interest only in a hospital

subdivision from referring patients to that subdivision. With

respect to specialty hospitals, the concern exists that, as

these hospitals are usually much smaller in size and scope

than general hospitals and closer in size to hospital

departments, the exception to Stark could allow physician

owners to influence their hospitals'--and therefore their own

financial gain through practice patterns and referrals.''

The problem with the ``whole hospital'' loophole is that it treats a 10-bed surgical facility the same as a 500-bed community hospital, even though that 10-bed facility more resembles a department of the 500-bed hospital than it does the hospital itself. This loophole is unfair, and our bill closes it, by preventing the establishment of new specialty hospitals to which physician-owners can self-refer.

Let me note that our bill does nothing to prevent the construction of new specialty hospitals--as long as self-referral is not part of the business model. Hospitals specializing in one type of care or another have existed in this country for years, and should be encouraged--as long as their owners and referrers are not one and the same.

Opponents of this bill will likely make at least three claims. First, they

will state that preventing the construction of new, physician-owned specialty hospitals is anticompetitive. Second, they will suggest that since the average physician-owner's share in a specialty hospital is small, economic incentives to self-refer are minimal. Third, they will claim the bill thwarts health care quality. Let me take these claims in turn.

As I stated previously, I am all for competition--as long as it's fair. But I don't think it's fair to further a system in which physician-owners can send healthier and more profitable patients to facilities they own, while sending sicker, less-profitable ones to hospitals they don't own. There's a reason Congress acted to mitigate the effects of physician self referral over 15 years ago, and I see no reason why that principle should not be extended to the specialty hospital setting.

On the issue of economic incentives, some argue that physician self- referral to specialty hospitals is a non-issue, since physicians typically own a very small share of a particular facility. In fact, MedPAC found that in about one-third of specialty hospitals they surveyed, the largest share owned by a single physician was just two percent. And as a group, physicians own just over a third of the typical heart hospital. But MedPAC also pointed out that about one- third of orthopedic and surgical hospitals were owned almost entirely by their physicians. Perhaps more important, MedPAC showed that even a relatively small ownership interest can reap large profits for an individual physician investor. Page 21 of MedPAC's March report on specialty hospitals says:

What is the order of magnitude of physicians financial

incentives to increase utilization when they own a hospital?

What follows is a hypothetical example of the marginal profit

associated with a group of cardiologists each referring just

one additional patient (above the current patient load) for

coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. In fiscal year

2002, the base payment for CABG surgery with cardiac

catheterization (DRG 107) was roughly $24,000. Our

examination of Medicare cost reports and hospital financial

statements suggests that variable costs equal approximately

60 percent of the DRG payment, roughly $14,400. Hence the

marginal profit--payments minus variable cost--would be

$9,600 per patient ($24,000-$14,400). If 10 cardiologists

owned a 3 percent interest each and they all induced one

additional surgery per year, each cardiologist's income would

increase by $2,880 ($9,600 3% 10).''

In other words, even a small ownership share--just three percent--can provide a strong profit motive--and a strong incentive toward self- referral.

Finally, let me address the third claim that will likely be made against this bill--that it thwarts the provision of quality care. Specialty hospital advocates claim that due to the focused nature of their mission, physician-owned specialty hospitals provide better quality and outcomes than their community hospital counterparts. But recently the New England Journal of Medicine published a study showing that patients undergoing certain heart procedures in specialty hospitals were less likely to have coexisting conditions than those being treated at general hospitals. The authors of the study stated, ``. . . given that we found no significant differences in outcomes between specialty and general hospitals with similar volumes or between specialty cardiac hospitals and specialized general hospitals, it could be argued that the specialty-hospital model itself does not yield better outcomes.'' They also said, ``. . . our study provides no definitive evidence that cardiac specialty hospitals provide better or more efficient care than general hospitals with similar procedural volumes.''

In short, there is solid evidence that despite being less efficient, physician-owned specialty hospitals care for healthier, more-profitable patients, leaving community hospitals to care for sicker, less- profitable ones. Economic incentives toward physician self-referral in specialty hospitals are significant. And there is slim evidence that specialty hospitals provide better care than community hospitals.

Given this evidence, it's clear that Congress should not facilitate the construction of more physician-owned specialty hospitals. And while we support ``grandfathering'' existing facilities, let me make clear that we do not intend to create another grandfathering period if the legislation is not enacted before June 8, 2005. The intent of this bill, even if it passes after June 8, is to effectively make permanent the MMA-mandated moratorium.

But this bill does more than simply prevent the establishment of new, physician-owned specialty hospitals. It also takes steps to mitigate ill incentives in the inpatient PPS, by making the PPS more accurate for all providers of hospital care--community hospitals and `grandfathered' specialty hospitals alike.

Medicare spends about $100 billion per year on inpatient hospital services, and it's important that this system be accurate. Accordingly, MedPAC recommended a number of steps to improve the accuracy of the Medicare inpatient payment system. These recommendations should mitigate incentives for all hospitals to choose healthy patients over sick ones, and to focus on some diagnoses at the expense of others.

Medicare pays hospitals for inpatient services based on roughly 500 Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs), which bundle services needed to treat a patient with a particular disease. DRGs cover most routine operating costs attributable to patient care, including routine nursing services, room and board, and diagnostic and ancillary services. Under current law, just over five percent of the base payment for all DRGs is set aside for inpatient outlier payments, even though some DRGs have almost no outlier cases. The Hospital Fair Competition Act directs the Secretary to adjust the DRG relative weights to account for differences in the prevalence of high-cost outlier cases, thereby removing their disproportionate impact on the payment system.

The bill also improves accuracy of the DRG weights. Currently DRG weights are based on the national average of hospital charges for a particular DRG. The rate of growth for these charges may vary dramatically, depending on the service. For example, MedPAC has found that hospital markups for ancillary services (e.g., supplies, operating room time) tend to be higher than those of routine services (e.g., room and board, nursing care). As these ancillary and routine charges grow at different rates, the DRGs reflect that growth, gradually skewing the system away from the true costs of providing care. In short, a charge- based system causes Medicare to pay too much for some services, not enough for others. The Hospital Fair Competition Act directs the Secretary to substitute the charge-based system with one based on hospitals' costs, as well as base the DRG weights on the national average of hospitals' relative values in each DRG.

Mind you, we believe that the Secretary currently has the authority to make the payment changes outlined above. The Hospital Fair Competition Act simply directs the Secretary to do so. We also believe the Secretary has the authority to promulgate regulations defining what a ``whole hospital'' is. When Congress passed the ``whole hospital exception'', it did not intend to allow self-referral to facilities that are effectively the equivalent of a hospital wing or department. We believe the Secretary can and should exercise his authority to close the ``whole hospital'' loophole by regulation.

Mr. President, some say that the proliferation of physician-owned specialty hospitals is a function of physicians' desire for control over their workplace. They argue that physicians typically have no say in day-to-day hospital operations, and thus little incentive to improve the quality or efficiency of the care they provide in the hospital. MedPAC's recommendations for ``gainsharing'' stand to alleviate some of that concern, by giving physicians more control over their workplace.

Gainsharing arrangements allow physicians and hospitals to improve hospital efficiency without the undesirable effects of physician self- referral. In a gainsharing arrangement, hospitals and physicians share cost-savings gained by means such as streamlining the purchase of medical devices, substituting less-costly items used in surgical procedures, and maximizing operating room efficiency. While gainsharing arrangements must be developed carefully so as not to compromise quality of patient care, gain sharing has the potential to align physician-hospital incentives so that care

can be delivered in the most cost-effective manner.

I realize that gainsharing arrangements are not a panacea toward improving physician-hospital relations. We can and should do more to give providers of all types a better stake in improving their workplace and the quality of care they provide. That's why I am pushing initiatives to tie Medicare payment to quality, so that--unlike the current system--the best providers are not paid the same rates as mediocre ones. This system of paying for quality stands to improve accountability across the spectrum of Medicare provider types, and give both patients and the government more for their money.

We all know that Medicare's long-term fiscal future is much in doubt. Hardly a day passes without a warning about Medicare's finances and the retirement of the Baby Boom generation that will complicate the long- term financial picture of the program.

Given these warnings, it's imperative that we make the most of the resources at hand, and--where possible--make Medicare a better more responsible buyer of health care. By leveling the playing field regarding patient referrals; improving the accuracy of Medicare's inpatient hospital payments; and giving physicians a larger stake in their hospital workplaces, this bill stands to do that.

Chairman Grassley and I believe these changes will go a long way toward improving much of what ails hospital payment under Medicare, and we urge our colleagues' support for this important legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, Hutchison, Reid, and Jeffords that would increase Medicaid Federal matching payments to 28 States by addressing a problem with the Medicaid funding formula that is expected to result in a majority of States in the country having their Federal matching rate drop this coming fiscal year.

Our legislation, the ``Medicaid Formula Fairness Act of 2005,'' would protect these 28 States from decreases in the amount of Federal funding they can expect to receive in fiscal year 2006. For the vulnerable low- income children, pregnant women, disabled, and senior citizens that the Medicaid programs in those 28 States serve. This legislation may be the only thing preventing them from losing their health benefits and joining the ranks of our Nation's uninsured, which is already at 45 million people.

In New Mexico, more than one-in-five or over 400,000 New Mexicans are uninsured and the State is facing a $78 million reduction in the federal Medicaid matching rate for fiscal year 2006. This is not the result of a dramatic upswing in the economy in New Mexico. The most recent poverty data from the U.S. Census Bureau actually indicates an upswing in the percentage of New Mexicans in poverty at 18 percent--the second highest poverty rate in the country.

Thus, at the very time when there are more people in need of medical care through the Medicaid program, the Federal Government is apparently reducing its assistance through Medicaid. So how is this possible?

The first problem is with the Medicaid matching formula itself. It is based on per capita income, which was established as a proxy for both need and State capacity many years ago. We now have much better data on what should be the factors in the Medicaid formula, including poverty and total taxable resource measures, but the old proxy of per capita income remains.

Despite numerous reports from the General Accounting Office, the HHS inspector general, and outside organizations calling for such an update to the Federal Medicaid formula, nothing has happened over the years. Rather than fighting that battle again, our legislation acknowledges that we are stuck with per capita income as the formula factor. Instead, we take issue with how that factor is dropping Federal matching rates across the Nation while the national poverty rate continues to rise. Again, how is this possible?

In the fall of 2004, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, published the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, or FMAP, for fiscal year 2006 based on per capital income, PCI, data from 2001, 2002, and 2003. According to the Federal Funds Information for States, FFIS, Issue Brief in September 2004, changes in the FMAP will cause States to lose a net $527 million in Federal matching funds in the Medicaid Program with decreases of $867 million to 29 States partially offset by increases for 9 States.

CMS acknowledges that 29 States will lose Federal funding, nine States will gain, and the balance of the States will not be impacted by the Medicaid changes because the latter group of 12 States are already at the statutory minimum FMAP of 50 percent.

Federal law dictates that the FMAP is determined based on the ``three most recent calendar years for which satisfactory data are available from the Department of Commerce.'' Thus, for fiscal year 2006, the PCI data used is from the years 2001, 2002, and 2003. The Federal intent of a 3-year rolling average is to limit the fluctuations that States might experience since only one-third of the formula is changed on a yearly basis. In other words, Congress felt it important enough to limit the fluctuations in the matching rate through the 3-year rolling average of PCI data that the result is the use of data from 2001 for the calculation of the fiscal year 2006 FMAP.

However, as analysis by the Oklahoma Health Care Authority indicates, in the case of the calculation, of the fiscal year 2006 FMAP, the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, BEA, performed a comprehensive revision of its calculation of PCI in 2003, as it does every 4 to 5 years, and provided revised data for previous years as well. As a result, CMS changed the 2001 and 2002 PCI data for States in the calculation, Consequently, all 3 years of the PCI data were being changed rather than just one-third.

The result is rather dramatic fluctuations--mostly negative--to State FMAP calculations, As the FFIS Issue Brief indicated, ``Fifteen States are projected to have changes of greater than one percentage point in fiscal year 2006, compared to only three for FY 2005.'' Not since 1998 have the fluctuations been this dramatic.

According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the average change in the FMAP between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 was -0.26 percentage points, for fiscal year 2003 it was +0.32, for fiscal year 2004 it was +0.12, and for fiscal year 2005 it was -0.09. Thus, over this 4-year period, the average change in the national FMAP was less than 0.2 percentage points. However, due in part to the rebenchmarking of data by BEA, the fiscal year 2006 change in the FMAP will be -0.55 percentage points. Compared to average change over the preceeding 4 years, the fiscal year 2006 FMAP change will be almost three times as dramatic.

As a result, 29 States will absorb a decline in the FMAP for fiscal year 2006. The Oklahoma Health Care Authority estimates that this will cost those States $860 million. The largest projected percentage point decreases are for Alaska, -7.42, Wyoming, -3.67, New Mexico, -3.15, Oklahoma, -2.27, Maine, -1.99, West Virginia, -1.66, North Dakota, -1.64, Vermont, -1.62, Utah, -1.38, Montana, -1.36, Alabama, -1.32, Louisiana, -1.25, Nevada, -1.14, and Mississippi, -1.08.

The largest dollar declines would be experienced by the states of New Mexico, -$79 million, Louisiana, -$72 million, Alaska, -$69 million, Tennessee, -$68 million, Oklahoma, -$66 million,

Alabama, -$55 million, and Maine, -$47 million.

FFIS adds, ``While the changes in FY 2006 are significant, for many states they only add to previous reductions. Thirteen states (Alaska, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) will experience three consecutive reductions--from the fiscal relief FMAP to the base FMAP in FY 2004 to a second reduction in FY 2005 and a third in FY 2006. The cumulative 5-year reduction for a number of States is large, and for many unprecedented--Wyoming (-10.37), Alaska (-9.97), North Dakota (-4.14), Vermont (-3.91), Oklahoma (-3.33), Maine (-3.22), and South Dakota (-3.24).''

The loss in funds to these 29 States is already resulting in planned cuts in benefits and services to Medicaid eligible recipients, such as low-income children, pregnant women, the elderly and disabled, and decreased reimbursement to Medicaid providers, including physicians, hospitals, nursing homes, community health centers, etc.

In an effort to minimize the dramatic fluctuations in the Fiscal Year 2006 FMAP, this legislation would limit the loss of States in the FMAP to 0.5 percentage points, which restores $442 million of the lost Medicaid dollars to 18 States. The bill would also give 10 additional States a higher FMAP if changes to PCI for 2001 and 2002 were not retroactively applied by CMS. This translates to approximately $229 million for a total of $671 million. This is still far less than the $860 million lost to the 29 States by FMAP reductions.

Therefore, this legislation I am introducing with Senator Snowe and others does not hold States entirely harmless. However, it does limit the losses in Federal Medicaid matching funds that States are expected to absorb due to problems with the use of per capita income as a factor in the Medicaid formula but also in how it is used. Our legislation mitigates those problems, and does so with the expressed intent of preventing millions of additional Americans from joining the ranks of the uninsured as many of our States will be forced to undertake cuts to the Medicaid program to make up for lost Federal funding.

Specifically, the bill allows States to get the better of: 1. the FMAP as calculated by CMS; 2. a recalculated FMAP without retroactively changing the 2001 and 2002 per capita income data; or, 3. a hold harmless limiting the reduction in the FMAP to 0.5 percentage points.

In New Mexico, for example, the ``Medicaid Formula Fairness Act of 2005'' would restore $66 million of the $78 million that New Mexico is scheduled to lose due to the drop in the Federal Medicaid matching rate. The other 27 States that would benefit from the legislation and the estimated amount they would receive are as follows: Texas--$113 million, New Mexico--$66 million, Alaska--$64 million, Oklahoma--$52 million, Louisiana--$43 million, Maine--$35 million, Alabama--$34 million, West Virginia--$27 million, Tennessee--$27 million, Florida-- $25 million, Mississippi--$22 million, Arizona--$22 million, Nevada-- $17 million, Arkansas--$14 million, Utah--$14 million, North Carolina-- $14 million, Wyoming--$13 million, Vermont--$10 million, Wisconsin--$9 million, Rhode Island--$8 million, Georgia--$8 million, Oregon--$6 million, North Dakota--$6 million, Montana--$6 million, South Carolina--$6 million, Idaho--$5 million, South Dakota--$3 million, and Kansas--$2 million.

I would like to thank the Oklahoma Health Care Authority, including Mike Fogarty and Stephen Weiss, for their outstanding work in analyzing the problem with the Fiscal Year 2006 FMAP and for their technical assistance and counsel toward the introduction of this legislation. I would also like to thank Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, Hutchison, Reid, and Jeffords for providing bipartisan support as original cosponsors of this important legislation.

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

There be no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Hutchison, Durbin, Snowe, Leahy and Feingold to reintroduce the ``Family Abduction Prevention Act of 2005,'' a bill to help the thousands of children who are abducted by a family member each year. We introduced this legislation last Congress, but it is just as needed today as it was then.

Family abductions are the most common form of abduction, yet they receive little attention, and law enforcement often doesn't treat them as the serious crimes that they are.

The Family Abduction Prevention Act of 2005 would provide grants to States for costs associated with family abduction prevention. Specifically, it would assist States with: costs associated with the extradition of individuals suspected of committing the crime of family abduction; costs borne by State and local law enforcement agencies to investigate cases of missing children; training for local and State law enforcement agencies in responding to family abductions; outreach and media campaigns to educate parents on the dangers of family abductions; and assistance to public schools to help with costs associated with ``flagging'' school records.

Each year, over 200,000 children--78 percent of all abductions in the United States--are kidnapped by a family member, usually a non- custodial parent.

More than half of abducting parents have a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, or a criminal record.

Most State and local law enforcement agencies do not treat these abductions as serious crimes. Approximately 70 percent of law enforcement agencies do not have written guidelines on responding to family abduction and many are not informed about the Federal laws available to help in the search and recovery of an abducted child.

Many people believe that a child is not in grave danger if the abductor is a family member. Unfortunately, this is not true, and this assumption can endanger a child's life. Research shows that the most common motive in family abduction cases is revenge against the other parent--not love for the child.

The effects of family abduction on children are very traumatic. Abducted children suffer from severe separation anxiety. To break emotional ties with the left-behind parent, some family abductors will coach a child into falsely disclosing abuse by the other parent to perpetuate their control during or after abduction. The child is often told that the other parent is dead or did not really love them.

As the child adapts to a fugitive's lifestyle, deception becomes a part of life. The child is taught to fear those that one would normally trust, such as police, doctors, teachers and counselors. Even after recovery, the child often has a difficult time growing into adulthood.

Let me give an illustrative example about a girl named Rebekah. On Takeroot.org, a website devoted to victims of family abductions, Rebekah told the story of when her mother kidnapped her.

Her mother was diagnosed as manic and was verbally abusive to her children and husband. Rebekah's father was awarded full custody of her and her brothers. However, one weekend, when Rebekah was 4-years-old, her mother took her to Texas.

Her mother had all Rebekah's moles and distinguishing marks removed from her body and she had fake birth certificates made for Rebekah and herself. As Rebekah grew up, she was told that her father didn't love her and that her siblings didn't want to see her. When the FBI finally found Rebekah, she didn't remember her father and felt very alone.

In addition, in many family abduction cases, children are given new identities at an age when they are still developing a sense of who they are. In extreme cases, the child's sexual identity is covered up to avoid detection.

Abducting parents often deprive their children of education and much- needed medical attention to avoid the risk of being tracked via school or medical records.

In some cases, the abducting parent leaves the child with strangers at an underground ``safe house'' where health, safety, and other basic needs are extremely compromised.

For example, in Lafayette, CA, two girls were abducted by their mother and moved from house to house under the control of a convicted child molester. Kelli Nunez absconded with her daughters, 6-year-old Anna and 4-year-old Emily in violation of court custody orders. Nunez drove her daughters cross-country, and then returned by plane to San Francisco, where she handed the children to someone holding a coded sign at the airport.

The person holding the sign belonged to an underground vigilante group called the California Family Law Center led by Florencio Maning, a convicted child molester. For six months, Maning orchestrated the concealment of the Nunez girls with help from other people. Luckily, police were able to track down the girls, and they were successfully reunited with their father.

California has been the Nation's leader in fighting family abduction. In my State, we have a system that places the responsibility for the investigation and resolution of family abduction cases with the County District Attorney's Office. Each California County District Attorney's Office has an investigative unit that is focused on family abduction cases. These investigators only handle family abduction cases and become experts in the process.

However, most States lack the training and resources to effectively recover children who are kidnapped by a family member. According to a study conducted by Plass, Finkelhor and Hotaling, 62 percent of parents surveyed said they were ``somewhat'' or ``very'' dissatisfied with police handling of their family abduction cases.

The ``Family Abduction Prevention Act of 2005'' would be an important first step in addressing this serious issue.

I urge my colleagues to quickly act on this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 in order to bring the relocation process to an orderly conclusion. I look forward to working with all affected parties on this bill and will work with them to ensure it takes into account their views. This bill will phase out the Navajo-Hopi relocation program by September 30, 2008, and at that time transfer all remaining responsibilities to the Secretary of the Interior. It provides a time certain for eligible Navajo and Hopi individuals to apply for and receive relocation benefits and after that time the Federal Government will no longer be obligated to provide replacement homes for those individuals. Under this legislation, the funds that would have been used to provide replacement homes to such individuals will be held in trust by the Secretary for distribution to the individual or their heirs.

The Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 was enacted to resolve longstanding disputes that have divided the Navajo and Hopi Indian Tribes for over a century. The origins of this dispute can be traced directly to the creation of the 1882 reservation for the Hopi Tribe and the subsequent creation of the 1934 Navajo Reservation. At the time these reservations were established, Navajo families lived within the lands set aside for the Hopi Tribe and Hopi families lived within lands set aside for the Navajo Nation and tensions between the two tribes continued to heighten. In 1958 Congress, in an effort to resolve this dispute, passed legislation that authorized the tribes to file suit in Federal court to quiet title the 1882 reservation and to their respective claims and rights. That legislation gave rise to over 35 years of continuous litigation between the tribes in an effort to resolve their respective rights and claims to the land.

In 1974, Congress enacted the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act which established Navajo and Hopi negotiating teams under the auspices of a Federal mediator to negotiate a settlement to the 1882 reservation land dispute. The act also authorized the tribes to file suit in Federal court to quiet title the 1934 reservation and to file claims for damages arising out of the dispute against each other or the United States. The act also established a three member Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Commission to oversee the relocation of members of the Navajo Nation who were living on lands partitioned to the Hopi Tribe and members of the Hopi Tribe who were living on lands partitioned to the Navajo Nation. Since its establishment, the relocation program has been an extremely difficult and contentious process.

When this program was first established, the estimated cost of providing relocation benefits to approximately 6,000 Navajos estimated eligible for relocation was roughly $40 million. These figures woefully underestimated the number of families impacted by relocation and the tremendous delays that have plagued this program. By 1996, the United States had expended over $350 million to relocate more than 11,000 Navajo and Hopi tribal members. At that time, there remained over 640 eligible families who had never received relocation benefits and an additional 50 to 100 families who had never applied for relocation benefits. There were also over 130 eligibility appeals pending. Without question, the funding for this settlement has far exceeded the original cost estimates by more than 1000 percent. Since 1975, Congress has appropriated over $440 million for this program.

At its inception, the relocation program was intended to be a temporary program that was established to fulfill a specific mission and we cannot continue to fund it with no end in sight. Moreover, I am convinced that our current Federal budgetary pressures require us to ensure that the Navajo-Hopi relocation housing program is brought to an orderly and certain conclusion. It is for that reason that I am introducing the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act Amendments of 2005. This legislation will phase out the Navajo-Hopi Indian relocation program by September 30, 2008, and transfer the remaining responsibilities under the act to the Secretary of the Interior. Under the bill, the relocation commissioner shall transfer to the Secretary such funds as are necessary to construct replacement homes for any eligible head of household who has left the Hopi partitioned land but who has not received a replacement home by September 30, 2008. These funds will be held in trust by the Secretary of the Interior for distribution to such individual or their heirs. In addition, the bill includes provisions establishing an expedited procedure for handling appeals of final eligibility determinations.

This bill is similar to the legislation I introduced during the 104th Congress. S. 1111 proposed to phase out the relocation program by September 2001. A hearing was held on that bill and comments were received from the affected parties. At that time, many of the witnesses stated that with limited exception, the program could come to a resolution under the time line proposed in S. 1111. Opposition to passing the legislation was based in part on the incomplete process of approval of the accommodation lease agreements between the Hopi Tribe and individual Navajos who were still living on the Hopi partitioned lands. That action has since occurred and the Commission has had eight additional years to conclude its responsibilities. Therefore, it is now time for the Congress to act to bring the long and difficult process of relocation to an orderly conclusion.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Bingaman today, along with Senators Rockefeller, Hutchison, Reid, and Jeffords, in introducing the Medicaid Formula Fairness Act of 2005. This legislation will provide a temporary increase in Medicaid Federal matching payments to 28 States and thereby avoid a significant loss funds which would otherwise occur due to a precipitous and unpredicted drop in the Federal matching rate for these States next year.

Medicaid provides essential medical care to low-income children, pregnant women, parents of dependent children, senior citizens, and people with disabilities and functions as a critical safety net for our most vulnerable populations. Enrollment in the Medicaid program has grown by nearly one-third since the beginning of 2001, as the numbers of those in poverty and individuals without private health insurance continues to increase. In Maine, where we have an older and less wealthy population, more than 300,000 people were enrolled in Medicaid last year. One in five individuals in the State now receives health care services through MaineCare, the State's Medicaid program.

States have experienced severe fiscal stress during the last few years, with sharp declines in revenues and budget shortfalls. This economic downturn, from which many States are only now emerging, has continued to leave many families jobless and without health insurance, forcing to turn to Medicaid. This has put an enormous strain on the States such as Maine which are already strapped with budget shortfalls. Many States reduced Medicaid benefits last year and even more restricted Medicaid eligibility in an effort to satisfy their budgetary obligations.

The formula for calculating the Federal matching rate, known as the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, FMAP, which determines the Federal Government's share of Medicaid expenditures, has contributed to the Medicaid problems that States are facing. The FMAP formula is designed so that the Federal Government pays a larger portion of Medicaid costs in States with a per capita income lower than the national average. Since Maine is a relatively poor State with a disproportionately large low-income elderly population, it has had a favorable Federal-State match in recent years, 66 percent in 2004. This translated to $1.4 billion in Federal dollars last year--two-thirds of MaineCare's $2 billion in Medicaid spending.

The size of Maine's Medicaid population means that any change in the FMAP has a disproportionately significant impact on Maine's budget. This year, Maine's Federal matching rate decreased from 66.01 percent to 64.89 percent, a drop of more than one percent. The change in FMAP for FY2006 is even greater and will cause 28 States, including Maine, to lose a significant amount of Federal matching funds next year. Maine's Federal matching rate will drop nearly two points, from 64.89 percent to 62.9 percent next year, which will result in Maine losing $46.7 million in Federal matching funds.

Under existing Federal law, the FMAP is determined based on the three most recent calendar years for which data is available from the Department of Commerce. This 3 year ``look back'' captures a period of time that is not necessarily reflective of a State's current financial situation. The FMAP for FY 2003, for example, was calculated in 2001 for the fiscal year beginning October 2002. The FY 2003 FMAP was determined on the basis, of State per capita income over the 3 year period of 1998 through 2000, when State economies were growing significantly. Yet in 2003, when this matching rate was in effect, a serious economic downturn was affecting many State budgets, and that downturn has contributed greatly to the growth of Medicaid for several years now.

We recognized this situation in the last Congress and provided for State fiscal relief by providing a temporary increase in the Federal Medicaid matching rate, which provided $10 billion in fiscal relief to States during fiscal 2003 and 2004, when we passed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 but that temporary Federal fiscal relief has now ended.

This Congress has reached a budget agreement which, among its terms, calls for reductions of $10 billion in Medicaid spending over the next 5 years. At this time, therefore, it is especially crucial that we continue to provide sufficient Federal matching funds for Medicaid, which has worked so well over the last 40 years. Our legislation is intended to be just a short term fix, for fiscal year 2006. It is my hope that we will see the creation of a Medicaid Commission to undertake a comprehensive review of the Medicaid program and make recommendations on how to make Federal matching payments more equitable with respect to the States and the populations they serve, as well as how to make them more responsive to changes in States' economic conditions.

However, today, states such as Maine are facing dramatic and unpredictable fluctuations to their State FMAP formulas. This legislation would limit the percentage decrease to a half percentage point for fiscal year 2006 and help mitigate the drastic effects that a severe loss Federal funding would have on our Medicaid population next year.

I therefore urge my colleagues to join us supporting this legislation to help sustain funding for Medicaid in fiscal year 2006 to help ensure that this critical health care safety net remains intact next year for those who need it most.