Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of a young Arkansan who, in the name of freedom, paid the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the nation he loved. Steven A. Valdez was a brave soldier who died a hero in a foreign land, but he was also a caring young man who deeply loved his family and friends and they were never far from his mind.

Those who knew Lance Corporal Valdez from his childhood in McRea, a small north-central Arkansas town, remember him as competitive, energetic and fun-loving. He graduated from Beebe High School in 2004 and, soon after, followed the footsteps of his older brother Glenn Skaggs, and his grandfather Billy Skaggs, into the U.S. Marine Corps.

In November of 2004, Lance Corporal Valdez reported to the Marine Corps Base at Kaneohe Bay, HI. Serving with the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, he was deployed to Afghanistan in June as a machine gun operator with Weapons Platoon Company E. Within the year, his family received a letter from the Marines, which cited Valdez's promotion to Lance Corporal and praised him for going above and beyond what was asked or expected of him. While serving in Afghanistan, Lance Corporal Valdez was stationed at Camp Blessing. The camp is located in eastern Afghanistan, in the foothills of the Hindu Kush mountains near the Pakistani border, and serves as a forward operating base for intelligence and military operations aimed to train Afghan security forces and track down al-Qaida terrorists. He served with a platoon of Marines guarding the camp.

While serving in Afghanistan, Lance Corporal Valdez and his grandfather, Billy had an agreement; Billy would send care packages with his grandson's favorite snacks and items from home, but he would also include phone cards with the expectation that the young marine would call his grandfather once a week. For Lance Corporal Valdez, it was a much-needed respite from the stresses of war that allowed him to feel a little closer to home; for Billy, it was reassuring to hear his grandson's voice and to know that he was safe and healthy.

On September 26, insurgents attacked Camp Blessing with mortar, rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire. Lance Corporal Valdez was struck by shrapnel from a mortar while running to his machine gun post. The brave 20-year-old died shortly after.

In remembering their loved one Corporal Valdez's proud grandfather speaks of him as a ``true hero.'' When his brother, SGT Glenn Skaggs, returns to Iraq, he will be concerned about his own well-being, but only in the sense that he doesn't want to put

his family through another grieving process. Despite these concerns, in a manner typical of this courageous and selfless family, he proudly states ``My brother was over there for something he believed in, and I want to help finish it.''

Although Steven Valdez may no longer be with us, his legacy and his spirit will forever live on in our hearts. On behalf of a grateful nation, my thoughts and prayers go out his family, friends, and all who knew and loved him.

I thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Food Employment Empowerment and Development (FEED) Act. I am proud to join my good friends and colleagues, Senators Lautenberg and Dole in introducing this legislation that aims to help feed hungry Americans and provide job training to low-income Americans in search of self- sufficiency.

The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that Americans throw away 96 billion pounds of food each year. This number includes the food we throw away after meals, food that loses its shelf life and food that never makes it to store shelves. Meanwhile, 36 million Americans, including 13 million children, don't know where their next meal is coming from. Many of these children will go to bed tonight on an empty stomach. This is a paradox in a land of plenty.

Several blocks from this magnificent and historic Capitol building, there is a kitchen located in the basement of a building that houses social services. In that kitchen, every day, over 4,000 meals are prepared by low-income, recovering drug addicts or unemployed persons who are training to be chefs. The dozen men and women are in a 12-week culinary arts training program and once completed, they will earn their culinary arts certification which will empower them to find a job in the culinary industry. The over 4,000 meals produced at the DC Central Kitchen each day come from a combination of donated, rescued or purchased food and are delivered to hundreds of agencies in the Washington metro area that in turn feed hungry adults and children.

America's Second Harvest has a national network of foodbanks which conduct similar programs called ``Community Kitchens'' that achieve the same goals.

These types of programs are smart and responsible uses of resources and Senators Lautenberg and Dole and I recognize a great model when we see one. We believe that by infusing some Federal support with private business, foundations, and faith-based and local non-profit resources, we can grow similar programs all across the Nation.

Again, we are taking rescued food, food that would otherwise be wasted, turning it into meals that are being prepared by people who are training to get a job to help support themselves and their family, and using the meals to feed hungry American adults and children.

I believe that all of us that are committed to helping end hunger in America agree with the old adage: ``Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.'' And it is this simple concept that is the impetus for the FEED Act.

I am hopeful that this legislation will help local anti-hunger organizations in Arkansas and across the Nation who want to use this multi-pronged approach to feed the hungry, empower the unemployed and maximize food resources.

I am proud to join my colleagues in introducing this bi-partisan bill today

and I appreciate those Senators who have joined us in sponsoring this commonsense legislation. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to ensure its speedy consideration and passage.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Food Employment Empowerment and Development (FEED) Act. I am proud to join my good friends and colleagues, Senators Lautenberg and Dole in introducing this legislation that aims to help feed hungry Americans and provide job training to low-income Americans in search of self- sufficiency.

The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that Americans throw away 96 billion pounds of food each year. This number includes the food we throw away after meals, food that loses its shelf life and food that never makes it to store shelves. Meanwhile, 36 million Americans, including 13 million children, don't know where their next meal is coming from. Many of these children will go to bed tonight on an empty stomach. This is a paradox in a land of plenty.

Several blocks from this magnificent and historic Capitol building, there is a kitchen located in the basement of a building that houses social services. In that kitchen, every day, over 4,000 meals are prepared by low-income, recovering drug addicts or unemployed persons who are training to be chefs. The dozen men and women are in a 12-week culinary arts training program and once completed, they will earn their culinary arts certification which will empower them to find a job in the culinary industry. The over 4,000 meals produced at the DC Central Kitchen each day come from a combination of donated, rescued or purchased food and are delivered to hundreds of agencies in the Washington metro area that in turn feed hungry adults and children.

America's Second Harvest has a national network of foodbanks which conduct similar programs called ``Community Kitchens'' that achieve the same goals.

These types of programs are smart and responsible uses of resources and Senators Lautenberg and Dole and I recognize a great model when we see one. We believe that by infusing some Federal support with private business, foundations, and faith-based and local non-profit resources, we can grow similar programs all across the Nation.

Again, we are taking rescued food, food that would otherwise be wasted, turning it into meals that are being prepared by people who are training to get a job to help support themselves and their family, and using the meals to feed hungry American adults and children.

I believe that all of us that are committed to helping end hunger in America agree with the old adage: ``Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.'' And it is this simple concept that is the impetus for the FEED Act.

I am hopeful that this legislation will help local anti-hunger organizations in Arkansas and across the Nation who want to use this multi-pronged approach to feed the hungry, empower the unemployed and maximize food resources.

I am proud to join my colleagues in introducing this bi-partisan bill today

and I appreciate those Senators who have joined us in sponsoring this commonsense legislation. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to ensure its speedy consideration and passage.

Mr. President, in accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing of my intention to move to suspend paragraph 4 rule XVI for the purpose of proposing to the bill, H.R. 2863, the Defense Appropriations bill, the following amendment: No. 2025.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of Amendments.'')

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join my colleagues in what we hope to be an opportunity to bring about an awareness of the dire need, not only of the evacuees, of those individuals in the affected States who have received such incredible, devastating natural disasters, but also the other Americans who are involved in this circumstance, the other Americans who have opened their hearts and their homes, their hospitals and clinics, their pharmacies and their community centers, their church basements--these communities who have recognized what it means to be an American. They have recognized what it means to be fellow Americans. They have recognized what it means to be a good neighbor--I was, I guess--tongue in cheek--perhaps I was criticized being a little overpassionate on this issue, so I will resume my good, soft-spoken, and commonsense approach to what I think to be a very real problem--to have deeper roots, in terms of what are the values we as Americans do profess and for which we are willing to put our money where our mouth is when we speak of these values to really talk about not the immediate impact but also the long-term impact of the decisions that we make or we fail to make in a timely way.

I will come at it from a different perspective. Maybe keeping my compassion down a little bit will be helpful, but it is hard when we look out and see the kind of compassion in the faces of the incredible constituents that we serve, that we represent, that we have the privilege of coming to this floor to represent each and every day.

We also look out at the private sector, for which we also can be proud, our Nation's health care providers and States that have been there, at a time when vulnerable Americans need them the most.

The moment that Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast--now about a month ago--they jumped into action. They didn't have to be asked. They didn't have to be told what their job was. Medical, professional, and community leaders knew what their job was. Their job was to reach out to their neighbors, to their fellow Americans, and to their fellow human beings, who were in unbelievably devastating circumstances.

Cities and States all around the country opened their doors to welcome Katrina survivors from throughout the

gulf coast region. Hospitals evacuated those who needed immediate attention. Doctors, nurses, and other health care providers have come together to provide health care to thousands of victims of this horrific natural disaster in the gulf coast. And they did all of it with no questions asked. They didn't ask: Who is going pay for this? Who is going to reimburse us? Who is going to take care of us? When the high numbers of Medicaid patients jump way beyond a survivable number, who is going to make us whole?

They did not ask those questions because they believed in this country. They believed in who we are in this body as Americans, who know our responsibility as neighbors. I happen to be somewhat of a neighbor of the President in the chair today. When my family is here and we are in session, northern Virginia provides an incredible neighborhood for us, just like our neighborhood in Little Rock.

We reach out to our fellow neighbors out there, as we do our neighbors in Arkansas.

It is what we are about in this country. It is being there for our fellow man. That is what these providers have done. Now it is our time.

We have an opportunity in this body to demonstrate that we understand what that means, we understand what it means to be a good American, to be a good neighbor and to provide to our fellow man who is in the neediest time in his life the kind of care and love and support that he needs--he or she--at that time without asking questions.

We could pass the Emergency Health Care Relief Act that Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley have worked so hard, in a bipartisan way, to bring about. I offered an amendment a month ago. I could see from my providers, those doctors and nurses, those pharmacists who worked 24-7, who spent their entire Labor Day weekend taking care of their neighbors from Mississippi and Louisiana, who didn't ask questions, I could see that there was going to be a tremendous need down the road to provide them piece of mind--that not only they were doing the right thing in helping those neighbors but also that they could continue to do the good job in providing services to the constituency, the community, and the neighbors they have known all of their lives.

Many of our communities in east Arkansas, particularly in the Delta region, are already disproportionately poverty counties. Hospitals and clinics, community health centers before Katrina were already disproportionately Medicaid and Medicare facilities. They were already heavily dependent.

Tomorrow, they are going to take a cut. To save money in this country, to look at where we are going to save money, we are going to reduce the Federal share of their Medicaid reimbursement as of October 1. Out of the 29 States that are going to see a cut in their Medicaid reimbursement, the most affected 7 States in the country by this natural disaster will see a cut tomorrow in their reimbursement for the neediest, those who depend on the health care safety net of this country because we are so trapped, so paralyzed in the redtape that we want to create in this body.

We do have an opportunity, though, to not only provide for Katrina survivors and victims of such an incredible natural disaster, but to also prove to the private industry of this Nation that we can react without the unbelievable web of redtape that leaves them hanging, that leaves them holding the bag for the cost of something that we should be held accountable for--not just held accountable because we are the Government but held accountable because we are the institution that wraps its arms around the American people when they are most in need. We can do so in an efficient and effective way.

To my colleagues on the other side who are so desperately worried about the cost of what we are doing, who are so afraid of helping one too many needy people, I say to you: Look at what we have become.

We have worked hard to keep the costs down. We have made it temporary so it wouldn't explode or overexpand--yes--an already very expansive program.

These people are not going home tomorrow.

I saw a piece in my hometown of Helena about a couple that left in haste out of New Orleans. They went to Jackson and could find no help. They went to Memphis and were sent to Tunica, MS. In Tunica, at the Red Cross facility, they were told there was already overcapacity, and they were simply sent away. They went to the next bridge that crossed the great Mississippi River and into my hometown, remembering someone they had grown up with in their childhood from Chicago, and called him hoping that he would be there. He was. He was a pastor of a church. He had opened his church doors and his home. He and his wife opened their home and welcomed them in, as well as other families that were already living there. They reached out to one of the most poverty-stricken counties already in the country--reached out to a small health care foundation that this community had managed to put together over the last several years to try to reinvigorate their health care infrastructure because they know how important it is as a component of rebuilding the vitality of their community and creating jobs for those who want to get into a more independent situation.

But who locates businesses, or factories, or jobs in an area where you don't have the necessary health care to begin with?

So you have a small nonprofit health care foundation paying for this couple's health care because the providers have no earthly idea whether their Federal Government is going to be there for them.

We are bigger than that. We are not talking about an open-ended payment.

We are talking about a temporary ability to give peace of mind to the people who, since day one when this disaster struck, have not asked questions, have put their full faith and hope in this Federal Government--that for once it will disregard the redtape, look wisely at something that we already have in place, and look wisely at past experience such as 9/11, when we were able to temporarily offer a health care safety net to survivors, and expect that we could come up with the wisdom and the courage in this body to provide them the peace of mind that what they have done for their fellow man was the right thing to do.

We are talking about ensuring full Federal funding within the area where medical care has been provided for victims of the hurricane.

Medicaid is our health care safety net in this country. I think this crisis itself has shown us how important this safety net is to our Nation.

We have to make sure it does not unravel in the face of this national emergency.

Do we have concerns about Medicaid? Do we feel as though there are places where we could be more efficient and effective in that program? You bet there are places we can be more efficient and effective.

Chairman Grassley has suggested some in terms of the cost of prescription drugs through Medicaid that can be negotiated in a better, more efficient way, to provide more cost-effective drugs in that program and hopefully lead the way to seeing us provide more cost- effective pharmaceuticals for all other programs, as we do with the Veterans' Administration. We can do that when we work together.

To scrap a program designed as a safety net for people who are in the most devastating circumstances is not the way to do that.

The administration promised they wanted to make whole financially the States that were providing health coverage to evacuees. They say there is no need for the Grassley-Baucus initiative to provide full Federal funding for Medicaid because they want to use waiver policy. What they did not say is there is no Federal funding, no Federal dollars in providing that waiver policy. There are no dollars that they will put behind that.

They have asked Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, the affected States, to sign memorandums of understanding to agree to be on the hook financially for a portion of the Medicaid costs of the survivors. How humiliating to go to a State that has been devastated and say: We are going to put you on the hook right here and now for the costs of what your neighbors want to provide. And we, as a nation, supposedly the wealthiest nation in the world, should be able to care for our American citizens.

We know those States are in no position financially to incur that kind of cost. Those three Governors testified before the Committee on Finance earlier this week. One of the Governors mentioned she did not even have the resources through her State legislature to overcome the increase in costs they were going to see because of the loss of Federal dollars they are going to experience tomorrow when their Federal matching portion of Medicaid is cut. That was before Katrina ever hit. Before this devastation hit, they could not find the resources in their State--with a disproportionate share of low income, dependent on that safety net--to be able to cover that. That was before the disaster.

Those Governors were highly concerned. They expressed it in their testimony and in their questions and comments about making sure the Federal Government would be there for them to make them whole, to extend help to their States--Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama--when they were unable to deal with that under their current budgets.

For Arkansas, what does it mean? Does it mean we are left holding the bag due to budgetary issues, due to the fact that there are a few people in the Senate that are more worried about the temporary spending to help the neediest of this devastation than they were about the $62 billion we vetted for FEMA? Nobody objected to that. I have no objections for taking the money from that. FEMA will probably come back and ask for more money anyway.

If it were your mother or your sister or brother or niece or nephew, uncle or parents or grandparents who had been displaced, who found themselves in a strange community with a chronic illness--whether it was heart disease, diabetes, perhaps cancer patients in need of treatment, perhaps it was a child who needed health care--can you imagine the fear of thinking you would not be able to access it? Or to find the provider that was providing it for you was scared to death that it was going to push them over the edge; that if they helped enough of the people without any assurance or piece of mind, eventually their doors would be closed and they would no longer be able to provide that kind of care.

As I toured the evacuee camps, there was an unbelievable feeling of gratitude among those displaced at a time when they had to have been devastated. A woman was about to get married who had lost her wedding dress in New Orleans. But the people in our community in Arkansas provided a wedding dress and a wedding for people who had been displaced who did not know where their other family members were, who were separated, yet who were still so grateful for the food, the warmth, the hospitality, the love and the arms that enveloped them in the evacuee camps where they found themselves. Some of them have dispersed and gone to stay with cousins, aunts or uncles, sisters or brothers in other States. That is one of the reasons we want the expansion.

We do not want it just for the State of Arkansas. We know we have already sent many evacuees to Pennsylvania, West Virginia, North Carolina, Iowa, Utah. They too are going to need health care because they do not know when they will be able to go back, and they do not know what they will be going back to. They do not know what happened to their jobs, the health care they may have had which is provided for in this bill to keep private insurance still in the go-along to make sure we make it whole as well, that we put as few people as possible into that Federal safety net.

We have an opportunity. I hope as a nation we can realize spending more and more time to try to bring up convoluted waivers--and our State Medicaid directors know that most of what is in the waivers is an empty promise. Last night in Arkansas, we got a waiver from HHS, but it certainly has contributed only to more redtape in addition to what has already been created. It provides more questions than answers. There is no money attached to it so it really is an empty promise that they will do something about that.

The survivors, the health care providers in the States, have received no relief, no legitimate help. They are out there doing this without any assurance of from where it will come.

We do not know in the waivers what services will be cut. How do we expect providers to know what they can provide and what they can't? Most of them were given the assurances from their State: Don't worry, we are part of a great Nation.

When you treated those people over the weekend on Labor Day, we are going to ask them to go back in their minds 4 months and fill out the kind of paperwork to ensure they can get reimbursed for a tetanus shot or for a procedure, whatever it might have been. They, in good faith, have filled out what the State has asked them to fill out to make sure they are accountable for the services they have provided. Yet through the waiver processes, there is yet one more piece of redtape, one more form to be filled out, one more web of Washington bureaucracy they will have to deal with, without any guarantee that there is money behind it, that there are resources to actually pay for that.

As we look at the waivers that have been offered, they create uncertainty about reimbursement. The administration has suggested creating a new uncompensated care pool to reimburse health care providers. When we asked where was the money going to come from, that is what they told us--a new uncompensated care pool. Why wouldn't we use something that already exists, that already has fraud and abuse stipulations and cautions? Why wouldn't we use a system that we can continually improve on? But we will create a new uncompensated care pool. We will not know where the money will come from.

I question my colleagues who are looking at fiscal responsibility. A new uncompensated care pool does not have any parameters to it, it does not have any protections from fraud and abuse.

Health care providers receive no guarantee about which services and how much care will actually be reimbursed through this uncompensated care pool. I go back to the story I used in committee the other day about the woman who survived on top of her refrigerator. She was reported in The Economist. She survived on her refrigerator for 3 days and was able to finally get out. She made it as far as Baton Rouge. She was a diabetic and quite in need of care. She went to seek out health care and was told she was categorically incorrect and could not get care.

That is the kind of redtape we will perpetuate if we do not look at the reasonable proposal that Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus have come together to produce.

Does it go as far as I would like it to go? It does not. I have been out there and have seen what the people are up against--both the providers and the evacuees. I see what their families are going through--not just the lack of care, the lack of essentials or the communities that are trying to provide for them, but the dignity they want to maintain while finding themselves without a home, without any possessions, dislocated from their family, their neighbors, the people who care for them and love them, finding themselves in strange places with people who are trying desperately to give them that sense of dignity and care.

In my soft-spoken and commonsense way, I appeal to my colleagues. We can be fiscally responsible. We can look for ways we can provide care and peace of mind to those who need the health care and to those who, without reservation, are providing it to some of the neediest, most destitute of Americans at this time in our country. I ask my colleagues: Please, do not put this off for yet another week. Don't send us home to our States to tell our providers, to tell the Americans that have evacuated the gulf coast, that they are not important enough for Congress to deal with this issue in a more timely fashion.

I compliment my friend from Montana for his and Senator Grassley's attempt to work through this issue and to bring about something that is not only practical and common sense-oriented, that is limited in its timeframe, but that is also compassionate toward our fellow Americans.

Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Washington State for the incredible job she does here every day, for the thoughtfulness she brings to this process, and the wonderful job she does representing the people of Washington State. She is a delight to work with and someone who I think brings to the table thoughtful consideration, with a strength and a courage and a wisdom that should make the people of Washington State proud, and I know it does.

I come here today after much thought and prayer over a decision

that is incredibly important. I agree with my colleague from Washington State that this is a time where our Nation needs much hope, whether it comes from the devastation we have seen in the gulf coast in the southern region of our Nation, whether it is the families of our soldiers who find themselves giving of themselves and of their families to protect the rights and the freedoms in which we in this Nation take great pride, and it is also as we come to the consideration of a Supreme Court nomination by the Senate which I find to be one of the most important and consequential duties we have as an institution in our system of Government.

I think the American people look to us now with hope that we will work in a bipartisan way, in a way of union, in uniting our Nation to bring about a coequal branch of our Government that can reassure the American people of justice and of hope.

This is especially true when the candidate being considered has been nominated to the position of Chief Justice of the United States, not simply an Associate Justice but someone who is going to provide the leadership to the highest Court in our land.

As the Senate performs its duty under the Constitution with regard to this nominee, I am also mindful this is the first Supreme Court nominee I have been called upon to evaluate as a Senator from the great State of Arkansas. I have no doubt this is one of the most important nominations I will consider during my tenure in public service.

Given the import of this decision for the future of this Nation and the responsibilities I have to my constituents and my country, I have examined all of the information available about Judge Roberts' nomination to ensure I have given this matter the full attention it needs and, most importantly, that it deserves.

In making my decision, I very carefully and deliberately reviewed the record compiled by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Further, I have considered the views of Arkansans, both those who think Judge Roberts will make a fine Supreme Court Justice and those who have real concerns about the direction he might lead this very important Court.

I have also met with Judge Roberts privately to get a better sense of who he is as a person, his temperament, and, most importantly, what his experiences have been in his life that may form his views and the interpretation of the Constitution.

Additionally, I have considered the views of his peers and colleagues in the legal community on both sides of the political spectrum who know Judge Roberts, who have worked with him firsthand and have a firsthand knowledge of his works and abilities.

Finally, I have prayed. I searched my conscience and reflected on my principles as a Senator for the people of the State of Arkansas, using my experience, coming from the salt of the earth in east Arkansas, a farmer's daughter, my experience as a wife, a mother, a neighbor, to make what I believe is the right decision and one I will have to live with for the rest of my life.

I want to say at the outset this has been one of the hardest decisions I believe I have been called upon to make since I came to the Senate more than 6 years ago. It has been difficult because the consequences of confirming a new Chief Justice are so profound.

Judge Roberts will likely serve on the Court for several decades, and I believe he will have more influence on the future of our Nation than any Member who serves perhaps in this body today.

This decision has also been difficult for me because of the manner in which this administration has handled this nomination, in some respects, and certainly many other nominations that have come before it.

When President Bush first ran for office in 2000, he told the American people he was a uniter, not a divider. He talked about how well he had worked with Democrats as Governor of Texas and that he was going to continue that approach as President to change the tone in Washington. And, oh, how that tone in Washington needed to be changed.

But sadly, that did not happen. President Bush has not followed through on that promise, and judicial nominations, unfortunately, are one of the most glaring examples of where his administration has fallen short. In my opinion, this administration has gone out of its way to divide this Nation and the Senate on judicial nominations, which I think is truly a disservice to our judiciary and to the American people.

When the Senate rejected only a handful of Federal appeals court nominees during the President's first term in office, I expected a uniter who would work with Senators, who expressed concerns, and nominate other qualified candidates who could win confirmation with broad bipartisan support. Instead, after winning reelection, the President renominated many of the same controversial nominees and essentially dared the Senate to challenge him again.

Reflecting on the last 5 years, his administration apparently believes it is better for them politically to pick a fight over judicial nominees than it is to pick sometimes qualified nominees who have earned the support and respect from those on both sides of the aisle in the legal community in which they work and in the Senate.

As a pragmatic Democrat who has always been willing to find common ground and to work in good faith with members of both parties to serve the best interests of my constituents, I am alarmed by the confrontational approach this administration has taken.

We can all be proud of the Founders of this great Nation who created our system of government, where they wisely divided the power of appointment and confirmation of the Federal court Justices between the executive and legislative branches of our Government. They did this to ensure only the most qualified candidates who had the confidence of the President and the Senate would be confirmed to a lifetime seat on the Federal bench.

I truly worry that the political tug of war over the judiciary, which President Bush has encouraged, threatens to undermine the judicial selection process and with it our framework of checks and balances which has preserved for centuries the rights and freedoms we cherish as Americans, not to mention the sense of pride and comfort or peace of mind it provides the American people to know that in that third coequal branch of Government, they can rest assured that their freedoms, their rights will be justly directed.

To work properly, the process depends on mutual trust and respect between the executive and the legislative branches, and when that trust and respect is strained, our ability to do our very best as a government, to preserve and to protect a fair and independent judiciary for future generations, becomes in jeopardy.

So it is into this atmosphere of political confrontation that Judge Roberts was nominated to the Supreme Court. And it is why, frankly, I have had difficulty separating my profound disappointment with the administration and the distrust it has fostered from my opinion of Judge Roberts as an individual. So to separate that opinion of Judge Roberts that I needed to develop as an individual, as a lawyer, and potentially the next Chief Justice of the United States, ultimately, I concluded it is unfair to hold Judge Roberts accountable for the actions of the President who appointed him.

As I have set aside the history of the last 5 years to take a closer look at this nominee, it has become apparent to me that Judge Roberts does meet the test I believe we should strive to achieve in the judicial selection process. After careful thought and deliberation, I have concluded Judge Roberts is a very smart man who has an enormous respect for the law.

There is no question in my mind that Judge Roberts has the legal skills and the intellect necessary to perform his duties on the Supreme Court. He has impeccable academic credentials and has demonstrated an impressive command of the law and Constitution throughout his professional career and during his recent confirmation hearings.

I also believe that above all else, Judge Roberts is devoted to the Constitution and the institutional integrity of the judiciary and the vital role it plays in our system of Government.

I have no doubt John Roberts is a Republican, like the President who appointed him. But I don't believe his party affiliation will prevent him from

giving both sides in each case before the Court a fair and impartial hearing.

Simply put, I believe John Roberts cares more about following the law and maintaining the respect for the judiciary than he does about politics and ideology.

I base this conclusion on the respect and support he has earned from lawyers and colleagues on both sides of the aisle who know Judge Roberts well--they know him far better than I do--on the evidence in the record from his own comments and those of his colleagues that he has had an abiding respect for the Court's decisions and that he understands the value of continuity in the law, and on his distinguished career as a lawyer and advocate before the Federal judiciary over many years.

I regret Judge Roberts has made this decision more difficult than it needed to be by refusing to be more forthcoming about his views on protections in the Constitution for individuals, especially as those protections and guarantees relate to civil rights and gender equality.

As many of my colleagues have already mentioned, Judge Roberts wrote several memos when he worked in the Reagan administration in which he advocated for a narrow application of Federal antidiscrimination statutes, specifically the Voting Rights Act and title IX. Judge Roberts indicated in his response to questions about these memos during his confirmation hearings that he was representing the views of his client, the administration, without elaborating on whether he held those same views today.

He stated he could not say more regarding his views on those subjects because to do so might undermine his ability, if confirmed, to impartially consider similar cases that are likely to come before the Court.

I believe he could have said more on those and other issues before crossing that line, but I don't believe Judge Roberts is entirely to blame for failing to be more responsive.

The partisan atmosphere which pervades the confirmation process today almost guarantees that Senators are left with no choice but to ask legitimate questions of a Supreme Court nominee they know will not be answered. So the Senate is left to make a decision based on the limited information provided during the confirmation process and from a nominee's previous work and life experience.

My vote for John Roberts is by no means an endorsement of his nomination process, nor is it an endorsement of the decision by the administration to withhold documents from Judge Roberts' tenure in the Solicitor General's Office during the first Bush administration. That would be helpful to Senators in forming an opinion about this nomination. These are the types of documents previous administrations have made available to the Senate during the consideration of Supreme Court nominees in the past. There is no reason to have not made them available in this instance. Future nominees to the Supreme Court, or any lifetime judicial position, may not possess the same outstanding personal qualities and impeccable reputation that helped Judge Roberts overcome his failure, and the failure of the administration, to respond more fully to legitimate requests for information. Indeed, there have been past nominees who have failed to receive Senate confirmation, at least partially because they refused to answer questions or release documents.

I feel that I have done my level best, despite my misgivings about the actions of this administration in the past, to fairly and carefully and in good faith evaluate this nomination, which is my duty as a Senator. I believe I have done that. It is my hope and expectation that, if confirmed, Judge Roberts will do likewise with respect to every litigant who comes before the Court, especially those who have not experienced the same opportunities with which he has been so richly blessed.

I believe Judge Roberts will do that, and therefore I will support his nomination. I join my other colleagues who look to leadership in hopes, in hopes that we can mend many of the fences and the difficulties that have been conjured up by very partisan attitudes in these nomination processes, but to look toward Judge Roberts in a way that understands and takes in full faith his commitment that he will administer the law through the courts in a just way, without regard for his political or personal views but with the kind of sincere devotion to the Constitution and the rule of law and the precedent of the courts that he has expressed to many of us personally; that he will move forward, and deal with every litigant who comes before him in Court in a fair and just way.

In closing, I wish to comment briefly on the future as we move beyond this nomination. When I first ran for office as a young single woman in the early 1990s, I did so because I had hope, hope that I could improve my Government and make it more responsive to the needs of the citizens of my State. Perhaps my greatest attribute was the fact that I was naive. It never occurred to me that I didn't belong here; perhaps that as a young woman, this might have been a place a little bit out of touch for me. But I ran because I believed in my country, I believed in the people of my home State, and I believed in what I had to offer.

I see a good bit of that in Judge Roberts as well. I have tried my best each day that I have been privileged to serve in public office to fulfill that commitment, and today I still have great hope for our Nation's future and its government. I also have hope that we can improve the judicial nomination process as we move forward if all people of good will on both sides of the aisle will work together in a spirit of cooperation and good faith. I stand ready to do my part to overcome our differences as a nation because I believe our country is so much stronger if we are united and not divided.

As we prepare to consider a second Supreme Court nominee in the coming weeks, I hope President Bush will take that opportunity to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

If the Senator will yield, I want to say how grateful I am to my chairman because he always does provide hopefulness, without a doubt, as well as a bipartisan attitude, in trying to get things done.

I guess you are exactly right. Some of my fear comes from the role that I have in helping to create history and the thoughtfulness that I need to put into it.

Some of it also certainly comes from recognizing that there is a right way and a wrong way to do everything. My hope is, as we go through these processes, that we become a more united body, looking at the right way to go about things and a more unified way.

I am grateful to the chairman. He is always a wonderful Member of this body to work with and he always brings balance and hopefulness and I am glad he is my chairman.

Will the Senator yield?

If the Senator from Nevada is worried about the dollars FEMA received, why did no one object to that? Why did no one object to the $60 billion being sent to FEMA, which has been so inefficient in the wake of this disaster?

Now we are going to ask, as the chairman of the Committee on Finance points out, the disproportionately low-income, disproportionately disabled individuals to pay for this?

I am here today to speak in support of the Emergency Care Relief Act of 2005 and to compliment the chairman of the Committee on Finance and the ranking member, Senator Baucus, for making this important issue a priority, for working hard and bringing people together to recognize it is not only a natural disaster but a national disaster. We as Americans have to come together to help our neighbors.

I find it odd that here we are talking about $8 billion, $7.5 billion, $8 billion compared to the $60 billion no-bid contracts. Maybe my colleagues who want to object to this are willing to jump in and help provide the bipartisan-nonpartisan commission we need to review the response to the natural disasters that happened on the gulf coast. Maybe they want to join in saying we need somebody who can review what is going on--not just what happened then but what continues to happen in FEMA.

Our Nation's health care providers and States have been there at a time when vulnerable Americans needed them the most. The moment Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast, they jumped into action without being asked. No one asked them to get in their cars and drive to the gulf coast to provide medical care, to get in their helicopters and go rescue those people off those rooftops. States all across the country opened their doors to welcome Katrina survivors. Hospitals sent helicopters to the gulf coast to evacuate those who needed immediate attention. Doctors, nurses, and other health care providers have come together to provide much needed health care to thousands of Katrina survivors. And they did it all with no questions asked. They exemplify what it means to be a good neighbor and what it means to be a part of this American family.

Our own Arkansas Children's Hospital is one of the many hospitals around the country that immediately jumped into action to provide health care for Katrina survivors. Even before the worst of the storm hit, they were evacuating young patients to safety. One patient, in particular, was a 9-year old boy. Let me tell you, that hits home with me; I have twin boys who are 9 years old. This young man had a severe heart condition that required a complicated heart pump to be flown in from Germany. Arkansas Children's Hospital evacuated this child from Louisiana, and he received the necessary pump, saving this 9-year-old boy's life. Does that mean anything to anybody in this body? It meant something to his parents. And for once, we as a Senate should stand up and take notice.

Arkansas Children's Hospital did. And they have already provided $1.7 million in uncompensated care to Katrina survivors.

There are health care providers all around the country doing similarly inspiring work. In Arkansas, our pharmacists have been filling prescriptions as fast as they can, paying special attention to those who have chronic conditions or were in the middle of their cancer treatment. Senator Baucus mentioned one of those cancer patients.

Hospitals have deployed medical teams to approximately 60 camps and shelters around our great State to address the medical needs of these evacuees. I have always been proud of the people of Arkansas. I have always recognized them as our greatest asset. And I am enormously proud of the countless providers and volunteers in Arkansas and all around this great country who have given their time to make sure that the health care needs of Katrina survivors are met.

By passing the Emergency Health Care Relief Act, we in this Senate have the same opportunity to give Katrina survivors, health care providers and States, the relief they so desperately need.

We are not talking about walking away and closing the doors. We are talking about a temporary relief for people who jumped in there and provided care, without being asked, without being mandated, but because that is what human beings do when other human beings need that kind of care.

Medicaid is our Nation's health care safety net. That is what we are talking about, a safety net for some of the most vulnerable of Americans who have been hit by an unbelievable natural disaster. This crisis has shown just how important this safety net is to our Nation. We need to make sure it does not unravel in the face of this national emergency.

Our home State of Arkansas, per capita, has taken in unbelievably disproportionate numbers of evacuees--not because we had to, but we believe that is what it means to be a part of the American family.

This place is paralyzed because too few are willing to recognize how important it is to not only reach out to our neighbors but to also follow up and back up those who have been there in these emergencies, to provide the health care needed.

I said earlier that it hit home for me. While I was on vacation this summer, one of my 9-year-old sons did get sick. I was in a strange State, in a strange town, never been there before. I found a clinic, and I went. I was so grateful. I felt so blessed to have Federal employee health insurance, to be able to access health care for my child while on vacation. Think about the mothers, the fathers, the families, the elderly who find themselves in a strange place--in a church, a makeshift camp out of a church or maybe in a church basement or maybe in some evacuated housing that has been made a makeshift place for the evacuees to stay. What happens to them when they go to get health care? What happens to that provider who has to look them in the eye and say, I don't know where you are going to get health care. That is not what we are about in this country.

We talked about billions of dollars we have directed to FEMA. We have talked about tax cuts we provided to low-income people who may or may not even know if they can access those tax cuts. But here we are talking about the elemental part of being a good neighbor, a fellow human being, looking to make sure the essentials of providing health care to our brothers and sisters in this country, and we are going to sit here and twiddle our thumbs over redtape? We are going to talk about the possibility of waivers that would cause us to have to petition the devastated States to pay back or to look at these waivers that do not have the funding so we give them a false sense of security so they can provide these services and then find they do not get reimbursed after all?

What is our Federal Government for if it is not to provide a safety net at a time such as this, to give peace of mind to the hard-working men and women who provide health care day in and day out? I have been to these evacuee camps. I have watched the redtape. I have watched the Red Cross volunteers argue with the volunteering physicians and health care providers on whether they can even give a tetanus shot to somebody who had to swim out of New Orleans.

We have an opportunity to stand up and be counted, to provide temporary peace of mind to the medical providers who are reaching out to provide the much needed services to the disproportionately low- income, disproportionately disadvantaged and handicapped.

I offered an amendment almost 3 weeks ago. As the chairman mentioned, it probably did go a little bit further than what is being talked about here. I am not ashamed of that. But I didn't give away the barn. It was still temporary just to make sure that these evacuees, these fellow Americans, could get the services they need at the most vulnerable time of their lives. I was asked in good faith to withdraw my amendment because nobody wanted to vote against it. Withdraw your amendment and we will work out a good bipartisan deal. Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus did just that.

I say to my colleagues who want to object to what we are trying to do, if you have a better answer or you want to say of that $60 billion that every one of us voted for to go to FEMA, maybe you are willing to look to FEMA and make sure that happens, $8 billion out of $60 billion is a small piece of the overall pie.

I withdrew that amendment in good faith. I hope my colleagues will recognize that we are talking about the American spirit that I hope we produce in the Senate.

Mr. President, today I rise with a heavy heart to honor the life of SGT Arthur Ray McGill. It is the story of a carefree and loving young man from northwest Arkansas, who was devoted to his family and always put them above all else. It is also the story of a trustworthy and brave soldier, who honorably served his Nation in uniform, and ultimately gave his life in the name of freedom.

Sergeant McGill spent most of his childhood in the small Arkansas town of Decatur. Those who knew him best would describe him as a quiet and patient young man who was always considerate of others and treated them with respect. He attended Decatur High School and although he left after his 10th grade year, he went on to earn his general educational development diploma at the age of 17. Soon after, he joined the Arkansas National Guard, where he would serve for 6 years prior to enlisting in the U.S. Army in November of 2002.

In his free time, ``Ray'' or ``Big Country,'' as he was known to friends and family, had a love for archery and could often be found playing video games or reading the comic books of his favorite superhero, Spiderman. But above all, his greatest love was his family, particularly his 7-year old daughter Kaylee. Her welfare was her father's greatest concern, and she knew that he could always be counted on to protect and care for her as best he could.

Sergeant McGill reported for duty in January of 2003 and was deployed for service in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was one of the soldiers in the initial waves of American troops into Baghdad, and served in the area until that August. Sergeant McGill returned to Iraq in January of 2005. In explaining his decision to reenlist for a second tour of duty to his loved ones, Sergeant McGill spoke of his feeling of being needed in Iraq, and that he was simply doing his part and was proud to do so. He would also speak of his future after the Army, when he hoped to study criminal justice, buy a home, and become a member of the U.S. Border Patrol in New Mexico.

Throughout his military service, Sergeant McGill's hard work and dependability quickly earned him the respect and loyalty of his fellow soldiers. They even began calling him ``Tizzley,'' a combination of a teddy bear and a grizzly, which aptly described the 6'6'' soldier who had a heart of gold. Though the comradeship with his fellow soldiers grew, Sergeant McGill was still a

world away from his family and they were never far from his mind. While in Iraq, he had a habit of sending gifts and money back home to provide for them and spoke to them often by phone or through instant messenger on his computer. To make him feel a little closer to home, he also brought a CD-ROM to Iraq, which he spent a good deal of his free time enjoying; it contained over 500 issues of ``The Amazing Spiderman'' and was never far from his side.

Tragically, Sergeant McGill was killed on July 19 when a roadside bomb exploded near his vehicle while he was patrolling through the streets of Baghdad. Back in Arkansas, friends and family came to show their respects and bid farewell to their fallen soldier, as his flag- draped coffin was buried at Fayetteville National Cemetery. Kaylee, who had been the love of her father's life, was presented with an American flag and her father's dog tags, as well as the Bronze Star and Purple Heart he had earned through his courageous service to our Nation.

Although her father may no longer be with us, I am hopeful that these items will forever remind her of the courageous and honorable way he lived his life. Words cannot adequately express the sorrow felt in the hearts of the family and loved ones of Arthur Ray McGill, but I pray they can find solace knowing that his spirit will forever live on in the examples he set and the many lives he touched.

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

Mr. President, I rise to lend my support to amending the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill for the purposes of providing additional grant money to fund interoperable communications for our first responders.

I compliment my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, for bringing this up and helping us to address, in an expeditious fashion, some very dire needs that exist out there among those on whom we depend the most.

In many instances, whether it is a natural disaster or any kind of an emergency circumstance, we find our first responders, without a doubt, are those who come to our aid first and foremost.

Without a doubt, in this age of technology and advanced communications, there is no excuse for us, as a nation, to not be able to provide to our first responders and to all of our Government assistance agencies the kind of communication that keeps us connected.

This past week, I visited some evacuees from Katrina in my home State of Arkansas. Our people in Arkansas are our greatest asset. I have always said that. Watching the Governor, he moved quickly to put people into place and to put systems into place to find available beds at everything from church camps to gymnasiums and other places, to move quickly to put into place something the Red Cross could respond to and so that evacuees could get to a place where they could begin to find some comfort and to be able to relax a little bit from the unbelievable experiences they have been going through.

I found, in one of these evacuee camps, the Red Cross had gone in and had taken a lot of the registry information of individuals so they could help reconnect them with their families and make sure they could make available the information that they were safe and where they were located. They did this for a tremendous number of evacuees, only to find that when FEMA finally arrived in Arkansas, several days later, their communication systems were not compatible. So we had to get volunteers from the local school to come in and reenter all of the information about these evacuees so they could also get their presence, through the FEMA modes of communication, out to all the different outlets where, hopefully, they could reconnect with their families.

We are in a day and age where communication should be easier than we are making it. There is no doubt there is technology that is more advanced than what we are providing in cases of emergency and particularly to our first responders.

A little over 4 years ago, this Nation confronted an attack like no other. We remembered, on September 11 of this year, September 11 of 2001. It was a day none of us will ever forget. That day showed us our weaknesses as well as our strengths. We vowed, at that time, to learn from our mistakes, great and small. One of the issues we learned we needed to address was the ability of our first responders, whether they be Federal, State, or local, to communicate with one another in an emergency situation in order that they all may do the best job possible for those whom they are trying to serve.

Four years have passed since we, as a nation, became painfully aware of the need to address this deficiency in our communication systems.

With twin boys who are 9 years old, who are quickly getting into lots of different types of activities--whether it is baseball or soccer, whether it is the chess club or learning how to play a musical instrument--I continually tell them: Just do your best. Just do your best. All anyone can ask of you is to do your best. Then you can be confident you have given your all and that you have done your best. And as you continue to try to do your best, you will always improve.

Think of how our first responders must feel when they know, with a little bit of today's technology, they could be doing better, they could be doing their best. They could be doing their best saving lives, reuniting families, bringing to people the kind of help and aid they have been trained to bring. There is no greater, more horrific feeling than to know you are capable of providing something such as that and yet are handicapped in being able to do your very best.

We recently had our first wide-scale test of what progress we have made with respect to this problem in communication. The results have been less than stellar. It is painfully clear we have not made the strides we must if we are to have the American people's confidence that their Government maintains a basic level of competence in times of emergency.

Emergency responders from my home State, the State of Arkansas, rushed to Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina hit. Being a neighbor to the north, we wanted to do all we possibly could do to help our neighbors in their time of need. When they arrived, they found they could not communicate properly with officials in the area. They lost precious time which could have been better spent getting help to victims, saving lives, rescuing individuals, doing their very best.

In considering whether to support this amendment, I asked myself a simple question: Are the communications tools that our brave first responders have at their disposal the best we have to offer? The answer is clearly no. We as a nation, we as a people, we, as a human race, with the good minds that God has given us, have produced technology that can assist them in doing their very best as responders in emergency situations. We can do better. With this amendment, we will give our first responders the ability to respond, using the skills, using the talents they have developed, using the very courage that is in their hearts and in their minds to help their fellow man.

I have seen what happens when we put our minds to correcting similar communications problems. We have an example in our own State of Arkansas called Justice Exchange. It is an innovative program that allows law enforcement officials to check the records of people they have arrested from around the country. It started with a small grant we were able to get for our Sheriffs' Association in the State of Arkansas. Working with computer operators and technology, we were able to design a system that was compatible, Web-based, so we could, in turn, share it with other States, other law enforcement agencies across the Nation.

A great example: A deputy in one of our counties southwest of Little Rock picked up a man on a traffic violation,

but he had a little bit of a suspicion. He held him, detained him for a while, and tried to look him up on the computer. The name did not produce anything. So he asked one of the other deputies to go back and see if he could get a real name from this gentleman. In building that trust, he got a real name. He put it in the computer and found out that individual was wanted for two counts of murder--two counts of murder-- in New Jersey or one of the other east coast States.

The fact is, in communicating, in building a system where people can share information and work together, such as in our law enforcement, we can solve so many of these problems.

This is not technology that is brand new. Much of it has been here for the last decade, to be able to connect and to use compatible software and compatible technology so these groups can communicate.

I think this amendment represents a very important step toward helping our first responders save lives. I believe it is the best reason to support this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to recognize the opportunity we have to say, after the horrific natural disaster that occurred in the Gulf Coast, we have learned enough to know our first responders need our help. They need current-day technology to be able to do the very best they are trained to do.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I first compliment my colleagues, Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby, for doing such a fine job and for the hard work they have done on a very important issue. I compliment my colleague and neighbor from Tennessee, Senator Frist, for working so diligently to get the supplemental emergency appropriations bill over here so we can help our neighbors in the delta region, in the Midsouth, lower Midsouth region. And I again compliment my colleagues from the States of Mississippi and Alabama and Louisiana for their incredible passion and concern, as well as their hard work and their diligent efforts in responding to the needs of their constituency.

Sitting here on the Senate floor listening to my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, I thought so desperately about some lessons I had learned growing up along the Mississippi River. My father was very emphatic about how important it is to not only have good neighbors but to be a good neighbor, how critically important it is that you have good neighbors that can help you raise your children, educate them, to help out with a cup of sugar or other needs you might have at the end of the month if you do not have enough, to make sure if you are trying to harvest your crops--as many of our farmers are right now--and you find out that to diligently get those crops out of the field you may not have enough hands or equipment to do that, that you can look to your neighbor to help you do that and others things.

I think during times like these, as we look to our neighbors from Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama and the needs they have, it is important for us--as we have been the recipient of their generosity and their camaraderie and fellowship--to understand how important it is for us, as neighbors, to be the good neighbor they have been to us and welcoming their constituency into our homes in Arkansas, to help provide them not only the necessities of life--the water, the food, the rest, the shelter, the clothes--they might need right now in such a difficult time but also to provide them the hug, the love, the comfort, the stability, the idea that we will be there with them, we will be there for them, as long as they need us.

That is why I come to the floor of the Senate today. As Senator Frist has mentioned, bringing an emergency supplemental appropriations bill over is really critical. But as many of us know who have worked diligently on so many of the components of our Government--that provides assistance and aid as well as just everyday services to the people we represent--it is very important to enable these agencies, these providers of services the language and the ability to use these dollars as efficiently, as effectively, and as quickly as they possibly can be used in reaching the needs of our fellow Americans whose lives have been shattered.

Amendment No. 1652

(Purpose: To provide for temporary medicaid disaster relief for

survivors of Hurricane Katrina, and for other purposes)

Mr. President, I wanted to wait until the Senator from Alabama had come to offer an amendment, but I do rise today to offer an amendment to respond to the dire health care crisis that has been created by Hurricane Katrina.

Hurricane Katrina has created a crisis of epic proportions for our Nation but particularly in the Midsouth region. It is a humanitarian crisis for the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. It is a capacity crisis for hospitals, for clinics, and community health centers, for physicians and nursing homes that are bursting at the seams with a surge in demand for care, mostly emergency care, mostly dire care, that has been evidenced by not only those who have been victimized by the dangerous natural elements but also by those who have been removed at a moment's notice from their homes where they have left their insulin, perhaps, or their high blood pressure medicine or other things that allow them a quality of life and a sustainability of life on a day-to-day basis.

It is a fiscal crisis for the States directly affected as well as those which have welcomed the displaced survivors, including Arkansas, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, and so many other States. When New York City faced a

similar set of crises after 9/11, the city turned to Medicaid, the Federal-State partnership of health care for the poor, to provide temporary coverage for victims of the tragedy. Our Nation's health care safety net met the needs of millions of New York families, ensuring them access to comprehensive health care services.

Current law restrictions on Medicaid eligibility impede our efforts to let Medicaid provide a safety net for Katrina's victims. Under current law, low-income individuals must be residents of a State in order to qualify for Medicaid coverage in that State. Once the individual is determined eligible and enrolled in Medicaid, Federal and State Governments share in the cost of purchasing medically necessary services from hospitals, clinics, and other providers. The amount the State pays varies from State to State--from 29 percent in Louisiana to 39 percent in Texas to 50 percent in the State of Virginia.

Katrina has displaced tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of citizens of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama who have lost everything and who will not be able to return to their homes until their communities are rebuilt. We are looking here to put into place some commonsense directives, some flexibility to allow these individuals to be able to access the kind of health care we in this Nation know they need and as Americans we want to provide.

These citizens cannot return to their homes and may not return to their homes for months, but under current Medicaid law, they are only eligible for benefits as residents of their home State. Under current law, Medicaid services can only be provided if the State puts up its own money for the match for the survivors, but the States directly affected by Katrina and those hosting the survivors will not be able to put up their match payments due to the fiscal crisis Katrina has created. This could put Medicaid coverage for our Nation's neediest individuals in jeopardy.

We want to prevent that from happening. We want to assure our providers and those in the communities who are there to wrap their arms around their fellow Americans--their neighbors, many of them to the south or to the east or wherever their neighbors from Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi have come from--that the Federal Government has the common sense and the wisdom to be able to provide these services with the flexibility and without the redtape that in many instances would cause providers to turn them away.

In the face of the public health, and State budget crises Katrina has created, current law is not plausible. If normal application procedures apply, the displaced survivors will face delays in establishing their eligibility for Medicaid. The providers serving them during these delays will not be reimbursed until after eligibility is established and may not receive reimbursement for their services at all. And for many of us from States that already have a disproportionate share of low-income individuals who depend on Medicaid services, this could be detrimental to not just those who are surviving Katrina but those who are hosting those victims and those survivors as well. The host States could incur large, unexpected increases in their Medicaid costs at the same time their revenues are reduced by the economic dislocation caused by Katrina.

What we are looking for here is something very similar to what we did in New York--to try to provide that flexibility that is needed, streamlining those services, and, more importantly, making sure the paperwork is not the mountain of paperwork that so many are used to but that they are simplistic and something that can expedite getting the needs of these individuals met.

This is a critical issue that has to be addressed immediately. Our States and our fellow Americans deserve it. To address these crises, I have proposed the temporary disaster relief Medicaid amendment.

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to announce my support for the Energy Policy Act of 2005. I want to thank Chairmen Grassley and Domenici and Senators Baucus and Bingaman for working with me to include renewable energy and energy efficiency provisions in the bill that are important to my home State of Arkansas.

Some may say this bill is not perfect, but I believe it is a step forward toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing the use of renewable resources in this country. This bill makes an effort to address energy concerns in every sector of this industry. In Arkansas, we have investor-owned utilities and co-operatives. This bill will help both of these providers serve their customers in a more efficient and reliable manner.

And while this bill may not go as far as some would like in the direction of renewable energy, there are many provisions in this package which will help the United States begin the long process of eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. I look forward to the further growth and development of the biodiesel industry that will be spurred by the extension of the production tax credit provided in the bill that I have fought for during my time in the Senate.

Another provision of which I am particularly proud relates to the cleanup of the Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor, a decommissioned nuclear reactor near the community of Strickler, AR, in the northwest corner of my State. The site is contaminated with residual radiation, liquid sodium, lead, asbestos, mercury, PCBs, and other environmental contaminants and explosive chemicals. The Federal Government helped create these contaminants and should pay to help clean them up. This is great news for northwest Arkansas, because this site has threatened public health and the environment there for too long.

Finally, I would like to thank the staff on both the Finance and Energy Committee, majority and minority, for all of their help in crafting this bill. Elizabeth Paris and Matt Jones have been patient and helpful with any idea or request I have come to them with. Sam Fowler and Lisa Epifani have been equally accessible when I had questions or concerns on the nontax portion of

the bill. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Todd Wooten of my staff who has done an incredible job of helping ensure my priorities for Arkansas were included in the final bill. This body would be nothing without the tireless work of our staff, and I wanted to make sure they knew how much I appreciate their hard work.

In conclusion, our current global situation shows us how important it is that we take steps to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We all know this bill is not a comprehensive solution, but a step in the right direction. We must continue to look toward more useful and progressive technology that brings us to our goal.

Much more work needs to be done if we ever expect this country to lose its dependence on fossil fuel and foreign sources of energy, and I urge my colleagues to continue to work hard until we achieve this goal.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Mike DeWine to introduce ``The ABCs for Children's Health Act of 2005,'' which seeks to expand access to quality health care for all children who are

eligible for Medicaid. The bill also ensures that children get the best health care at the right time.

Medicaid is the single largest insurer for children. Twenty-five million children in America, one out of every four, depend on Medicaid for their health care coverage. In Arkansas, more than half of the births are financed by Medicaid. Over half of the children in Arkansas are on Medicaid or received Medicaid services in the last year. Medicaid covers half of the care, on average, that children's hospitals provide. As a result, the availability and quality of health care for all children relies greatly on Medicaid.

As a result of progress in children's Medicaid coverage and the enactment of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, Congress has achieved an essential health care safety net for lower income children and children with special health care needs. Medicaid has saved millions of children from being uninsured when parents are faced with hard times and it has come to the aid of working families when children have exceptional medical costs. I believe that we must continue to build on that progress.

The ABCs for Children's Health Act of 2005 encourages States to provide care for more children under Medicaid. It also helps states to ensure that all eligible children are enrolled and that they get the high quality care they need. The bill would provide the same investments in quality and performance in children's health care service's that are being made in Medicare. National quality and performance measures for children are far behind those for adults.

I encourage my colleagues to join us as supporters of this important legislation to ensure that children get the quality health care they need to grow and prosper. Our Nation's children deserve the best health care we can offer. And this is a step in the right direction.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Mike DeWine to introduce ``The ABCs for Children's Health Act of 2005,'' which seeks to expand access to quality health care for all children who are

eligible for Medicaid. The bill also ensures that children get the best health care at the right time.

Medicaid is the single largest insurer for children. Twenty-five million children in America, one out of every four, depend on Medicaid for their health care coverage. In Arkansas, more than half of the births are financed by Medicaid. Over half of the children in Arkansas are on Medicaid or received Medicaid services in the last year. Medicaid covers half of the care, on average, that children's hospitals provide. As a result, the availability and quality of health care for all children relies greatly on Medicaid.

As a result of progress in children's Medicaid coverage and the enactment of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, Congress has achieved an essential health care safety net for lower income children and children with special health care needs. Medicaid has saved millions of children from being uninsured when parents are faced with hard times and it has come to the aid of working families when children have exceptional medical costs. I believe that we must continue to build on that progress.

The ABCs for Children's Health Act of 2005 encourages States to provide care for more children under Medicaid. It also helps states to ensure that all eligible children are enrolled and that they get the high quality care they need. The bill would provide the same investments in quality and performance in children's health care service's that are being made in Medicare. National quality and performance measures for children are far behind those for adults.

I encourage my colleagues to join us as supporters of this important legislation to ensure that children get the quality health care they need to grow and prosper. Our Nation's children deserve the best health care we can offer. And this is a step in the right direction.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to take a few moments for an important recognition for Arkansans. Today I rise to pay tribute to two very distinguished Arkansans, first to the new and undefeated, undisputed middleweight champion of the world, Jermain Taylor.

Jermain Taylors' skill in the boxing ring is only one reason for me to recognize him on the Senate floor. Jermain is one of boxing's rising young stars.

He is known for his skill and his power in the ring, but he is also known for his grace and humility outside of the ring.

On July 16, Jermain, a Little Rock native, thrilled the people of Arkansas when he stepped into a ring in Las Vegas, NV and took the middleweight championship of the world from Bernard Hopkins.

Jermain's victory that night was the culmination of a lifetime of hard work and sacrifice that began when he was just a small boy. When Jermain was 5, he had to take on the responsibility of being the man of the house after his father left the family.

Even at that young age, he took responsibility for his younger sisters without hesitation.

At the age of 13, he made his way into Ozell Nelson's gym and, though he lost his first sparring session, he enjoyed the challenge and believed he would improve, and he could improve with hard work.

He did, and in 1996 he won the U.S. Under 19 Championships. In 2000, he won a bronze medal while representing his country in the Olympic Games held in Sydney, Australia. Shortly thereafter he began his pro career.

By all accounts and by every measure, Jermain Taylor is a great fighter, but he is an even better person. He has been described as humble, determined and one who knows that family comes first.

In short, he embodies the best of what being an Arkansan is all about.

He is a self described country boy with country values. Being an old farmer's daughter myself, I can vouch for the fact that there is nothing wrong with that.

Thousands of Arkansans traveled to Las Vegas to support their local hero. Chants of J.T. and the calling of the hogs could be heard throughout the fight as Jermain outworked and outboxed his opponent.