Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am proud to be reintroducing the FBI Reform Act of 2003 with Senator Patrick Leahy. This reform bill is designed to address the accountability problems that have plagued the FBI for years. For almost a decade, I have been engaged in FBI oversight, and during that time, I have seen numerous scandals and coverups. I am pleased to see that Director Mueller is committed to changing the culture of the FBI. He is making good strides toward overcoming past bad policies and procedures at the Bureau. However, Congress also has a role to play in this overhaul of the FBI.

A little over a year ago, a bill similar to this one was approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. Since then, a number of the provisions of that bill were enacted in separate legislation. However, some of the most important provisions of that bill--provisions protecting whistleblowers, creating a Security Career Program and Counterintelligence Polygraph Program, and ending the double standard for discipline of senior FBI executives--have yet to be taken up by the full Senate. These provisions are needed to maintain America's confidence in the FBI.

When I was growing up, I was surrounded by a generation that believed the FBI could do no wrong. Yet today at a time when we rely on the FBI to protect us from acts of catastrophic terrorism that endanger the lives of the American people, a time when the need for confidence in the FBI is at its greatest, Americans' trust and confidence in the FBI has been shaken. Do not get me wrong, the majority of FBI agents and especially those who are posted all over the heartland of this country, are honorable, hard working Federal servants who are doing a great job of protecting us from harm. However, there are a few bad apples that must be dealt with because their actions give the Bureau a black eye. The spy cases of Robert Hanssen and Chinese espionage in Los Angeles have highlighted internal security problems. Retaliation against agents like John Roberts, Frank Perry, and Patrick Kiernan, who did their duty investigating internal wrongdoing and spoke the truth to Congress, highlight continuing cultural hostility to criticism. This bill goes a long way to address these systemic problems and shore up trust and confidence in the FBI in the wake of these concerns.

While Congress sometimes follows a hands-off approach to the FBI, the Judiciary Committees hearings and other oversight activities over the last 2 or 3 years have highlighted the actions that Congress needs to take to do its part in reforming the Bureau. The hearings that spurred this legislation demonstrated the need to extend adequate whistleblower protections to the FBI, enhance the Bureau's internal security program, end the double-standard for discipline, and modernize the FBI's information technology systems. These and additional management issues the committee has explored are reflected in this bill. As the Patriot Act has increased the FBI's powers, as the American people have increased their reliance on the FBI to stop terrorism, and as we continue to increase the FBI's funding, it is time for Congress to take action with a more hands-on approach. Let me provide some more detail about the most important provisions of the FBI reform bill.

First, title I of the bill contains much needed protections for FBI whistleblowers. As my colleagues know, I have long held that good government requires that the brave men and women who blow the whistle on wrongdoing be protected. It is my strong belief that disclosures of wrongdoing by whistleblowers are an integral part of our system of checks and balances. However, although whistleblowers play a critical role in ensuring that waste, fraud, and abuse are brought to light and that public health and safety problems are exposed, the same whistleblower protection laws that apply to almost all other Federal employees do not currently apply to the FBI. In fact, it is a violation for FBI agents to report problems to Congress. That restriction leaves patriotic, loyal FBI employees with little recourse. This bill will fix that problem.

I truly believe that reform at the FBI will only occur when FBI employees feel free to blow the whistle on wrongdoing. Without adequate whistleblower protections, I am concerned that agents, such as Coleen Rowley and others, who speak out about abuses and problems at the FBI will be subject to retaliation. Thus, this bill finally gives FBI whistleblowers the same rights and protections that other Federal employees currently possess. When this bill is passed, FBI employees who are retaliated against for blowing the whistle will be able to avail themselves of all the protections afforded by the Whistleblower Protection Act.

In order to enhance internal security at the FBI, title II of the bill requires the FBI to establish a career security program and ensure that appropriate management tools and resources are devoted to that task. Modeled after the Department of Defense Acquisition Career Program, security professional career development requirements would bring the FBI into line with the other Federal agencies that handle top secret intelligence. This bill establishes and defines the Career Security Program and sets out the framework for career development and training in internal security. With the development of a Career Security Program, the FBI can meet the challenges of espionage, information technology vulnerability, and the threat of direct terrorist attack.

This bill requires the Attorney General to establish policies and procedures for career management of FBI security personnel. It directs the Director of the FBI to appoint a Director of Security who would chair a security career program board that would advise in the management of hiring, training, education, and career development. The bill also requires the FBI Director to designate certain positions as security positions. The bill requires that career paths to senior positions be published, and it ensures that all FBI personnel would have the opportunity to acquire the education, training and experience needed for senior security positions. Moreover, in order to ensure that security professionals gain the stature that special agents enjoy, the bill provides that special agents would not have preference for security positions and security positions could not be restricted to special agents unless the Attorney General makes a special determination.

Furthermore, the bill would direct that education, training, and experience requirements be established for each position and that before assignment as a manager or a deputy manager of a significant security program, a person would have to complete an accredited security program management course and have at least 6 years security experience, including 2 years in a similar program.

In addition to the Security Career Program, the bill will also enhance security through the creation of an FBI counterintelligence polygraph program. The program would consist of the periodic screening of employees and contractors who have access to sensitive information or restricted data. While the program recognizes the value of polygraph screening, it also provides safeguards for those subject to polygraph examination. The bill directs that the program have procedures to address false positives, ensure quality control, requires that no adverse personnel action could be taken solely by reason of physiological reaction on an exam without further investigation, and provides that employees would have prompt access to unclassified reports of their exams that relate to adverse personnel action. Thus, title III provides increased security while at the same time protecting employee rights.

Title IV requires the Attorney General to report on the legal authority for the FBI's programs and activities. This report will help the FBI focus on its most important duty--preventing terrorism--by cutting back on the FBI's jurisdiction, which has become cumbersome and unwieldy. Currently, the FBI investigates over 300 different Federal offenses, which are divided between violent crime, white collar crime, organized crime, drugs, national security, and civil rights. In many of these areas, there are instances of concurrent or overlapping jurisdiction with other Federal law enforcement agencies who specialize in investigating these crimes.

The FBI needs to scale back on the broad range of investigations which are duplicated by other Federal and State agencies. The Bureau needs to completely jettison some of these areas and in other areas, the Bureau could simply take a secondary role, allowing another agency to take the lead. In order to assist the FBI in scaling back its jurisdiction, this bill directs the Attorney General to report to Congress on the legal authority for FBI programs and activities, identifying those that have express statutory authority and those that do not. The bill also requires the Attorney General to recommend what criminal statutes for which he believes the FBI should have investigative responsibility.

Additionally, there exists a gross inequality in the way Senior Executive Service, SES, employees of the FBI and rank and file agents are disciplined. SES employees are often given a slap on the wrist for an infraction, whereas the rank and file agents are often punished to the letter of the law. Title V of the bill attempts to address this double standard. The bill attempts to address the double standard by providing some flexibility in how SES employees can be punished. The Senate Judiciary Committee has heard repeatedly that this inflexibility is one of the main causes for the inequality in punishment at the FBI. Under the current

system, the minimum suspension that an SES employee can receive is 14 days. This means that the FBI's management is often left with the choice of either an overly harsh penalty or no penalty at all. Often they decide not to impose any meaningful disciplinary action.

In order to attempt to remedy this problem our bill lifts the 14-day minimum suspension for SES disciplinary cases to provide for additional options in disciplining senior executive employees. Hopefully, this change will help to remedy this double standard. In addition, our bill would require the Office of Inspector General to submit to the Judiciary Committees of both houses, for 5 years, annual reports by the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility on its investigations, recommendations, and their disposition including an analysis of whether any double standard is being employed.

Finally, title VI of the bill attempts to provide further enhancement to security at the Department of Justice as a whole. This title would implement recommendations of the Webster Commission for enhancing security at the DOJ. It requires the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress on the manner by which the Department plans to improve protection of security information at the DOJ. Moreover, this title authorizes funds to meet the demands for increased security at the DOJ. Also, the bill would authorize funds for the DOJ Office of Intelligence Policy and Review to help meet the increased demands to combat terrorism, process applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, participate effectively in counterespionage investigations, provide policy analysis and oversight on national security matters, and enhance computer and telecommunications security.

Mr. President, I say to my fellow colleagues, it is time we acted on the reforms in this bill. It has been almost a year since this bill passed unanimously out of committee. Let's act to reform the FBI and help maintain America's trust and confidence in the Bureau.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to inform my colleagues that I have raised an objection to proceeding to S. 1125. Although I support finding a solution to the asbestos litigation crisis, there are a number of problems with this bill as currently drafted regarding the tax treatment of the asbestos fund. These problems affect the tax treatment of the amounts paid into and received from the asbestos fund. If not remedied, there could be serious adverse tax consequences to the companies, the asbestos fund, and, most importantly, the beneficiaries. These tax issues are within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, I believe that S. 1125 should be referred to the Finance Committee, but in the event it is not, the bill should be held from the floor until the Finance Committee can report a separate tax title for floor consideration.

Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1399, a bill I am happy to cosponsor with Senator Harkin, to name the post office in Glenwood, IA, the William J. Scherle Post Office Building. Former Congressman Bill Scherle served in the U.S. House of Representatives for four terms, from 1967-1975. Before that, we served together in the Iowa House of Representatives. Bill Scherle is originally from New York State, so he was not born an Iowan, but you would never know it. He acclimated well to Iowa, living on a farm near the small southwestern Iowa town of Henderson. Bill is a farmer through and through. He was a plainspoken conservative voice in Congress and he represented his largely rural western Iowa district well. He then went on to serve his country in the Department of Agriculture. Bill Scherle has given a good portion of his life to public service and it is fitting that a post office near his home be named in his honor. In fact, Bill Scherle's legacy as a public servant is demonstrated by the fact that this bill to honor him is a bipartisan initiative. Both Senator Harkin and I recognize the contribution made by Bill Scherle to Iowa and to the United States. I was very sorry when I recently learned that Bill is in poor health. I wish him the best and my prayers are with him and his family. I am glad that we have this opportunity now to recognize Bill and his service to his State and his Nation. I would like to thank Chairman Collins for her help in allowing this bill to be moved quickly through the Government Affairs Committee and the Senate. I know that Congressman King, who follows in Congressman Scherle's footsteps, has sponsored a similar measure in the House with the support of others from the Iowa delegation. Those who know Bill Scherle or know of his legacy understand why this honor is so appropriate and I hope this bill can be enacted very soon.

I rise in strong support of granting normal trade relations status to Serbia and Montenegro, which was revoked from Yugoslavia under U.S. sanctions in 1992. Senator Voinovich submitted an amendment to the Department of State Authorization bill to grant normal trade relations status to Serbia and Montenegro. However, because this matter is within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, which I chair, I felt it necessary to object to including the provision on that piece of legislation.

Still, I understand Senator's Voinovich's frustration. The Finance Committee reported out legislation which would renew normal trade relations status for Serbia and Montenegro on March 20, 2003, in the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2003, S. 671. This bill generally passes each year by unanimous consent in the Senate.

Unfortunately, the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill has been held up for months by the insistence of some Senators on including an unrelated, controversial provision to the bill. This provision cannot be included in the bill because other Senators will object. By holding up this important piece of legislation, U.S. manufacturers and workers whose businesses rely on duty suspensions are being harmed. They are losing money, and facing the possibility of laying off workers every day that we fail to act.

This is important legislation, and I know that I am not the only one who thinks so. Sixty-six of my colleagues sent a letter to the Majority Leader, urging him to bring up S. 671 for a vote. I support their efforts, and hope this vitally important legislation will move as soon as possible. I would like to thank Senator Voinovich for raising the issue, and ask that all my colleagues recognize not only the importance, but the urgency of this legislation.

I will submit for the record a letter in support for NTR for Serbia and Montenegro, from the America's Development Foundation, ADF, a nonprofit organization assisting the international development of democracy. The ADF is working in Serbia to promote economic and social development through a program called Community Revitalization through Democratic Action, or CRDA.

I will continue to try and pass normal trade relations for Serbia and Montenegro and appreciate my colleague's strong support and advocacy on the issue.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I referred be printed in the Record.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1052

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I send to the desk a modification of the Grassley benchmark amendment filed last night. I ask that I have a right to modify my amendment.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order to the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask that the pending amendments be set aside and that the Senator from Washington be recognized for an amendment.

Is the amendment before us now?

We have looked at the amendment on this side. It has been modified, and I urge we accept it on a voice vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Before I use my time, I have a unanimous consent request. That unanimous consent request is that the time lapse between the next two votes be 10 minutes instead of 15 minutes.

Mr. President, first, from a parliamentary point of view, this amendment, if adopted, would subject the entire bill to a budget point of order. We have enough people in this body who maybe do not want a prescription drug bill that could take down the whole bill.

The other reason is, all the concerns the Senator has mentioned we have taken into account within the $400 billion capability of our legislation. We have before us this $400 billion to provide prescription drug benefits to our seniors. We have used that $400 billion to help low-income seniors with prescription drug costs if they have cancer, diabetes, or anything else for which they need drugs.

We have used the $400 billion to limit the catastrophic costs of prescription drugs to all seniors. We do not create two drug classes for the sick and the ill, and that is why we should move forward with this amendment so it does not bring down the whole bill on a potential budget point of order.

I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Reserving the right to object, have we seen this? We do not seem to know about this.

Reserving the right to object, we do not know about the

modification--or do we? We do not seem to.

I withdraw the reservation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of Senator Kyl, to withdraw the Kyl amendment to the Grassley amendment.

Mr. President, it is unfair for Members of the other side of the aisle to give us statistics that say 89 percent of the seniors are in for fee-for-service Medicare and only 11 percent are in Medicare+Choice and that is a nationwide average. It is an accurate statistic, but it does not speak to the seniors of America who like Medicare+Choice and I have figures from four cities--Miami, New York, San Francisco, and Chicago.

In Miami, 45 percent of the senior citizens have chosen managed care, the Medicare+Choice option, as opposed to fee-for-service; New York, 22 percent; San Francisco, 29 percent. In Chicago, it was only 6 percent. That may be one reason why Senator Durbin keeps bringing this up quite regularly. This data is from the Congressional Research Service, and it is as recent as March 2003.

When people, wherever they are in the Senate, want to denigrate Medicare+Choice by saying only 11 percent of the people in this country join in and that is such a small percentage and that these figures are evidence it is not liked, go to Miami and ask 45 percent of the citizens who belong to Medicare+Choice why they like it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume to address the issue of the amendment by the Senator from North Dakota and his attempt to take money from the $12 billion that is the bipartisan compromise that is a major compromise on this amendment between Republicans and Democrats. The $12 billion is being divided: $6 billion to make the marketplace provider organizations more competitive, to save money, and to get people into organizations that will manage particularly chronic disease; and the other $6 billion to go for Medicare demonstration projects to do the same, have about the same result, to have chronic disease management.

The reason for this compromise is both approaches deal with the issue that 5 percent of the sick people under Medicare are responsible for about 50 percent or 55 percent of the cost of Medicare. It is a small segment of people. If we were in business and we found 5 percent of our employees, or a certain problem we had with our business that was just 5 percent of it, but it was 50 percent of the cost of our business, we would hone in on that problem with the particular business.

The Federal Government is in the business of providing health care for our seniors. If we have 5 percent of our senior population who, for various reasons, are the cause of 50 percent of the costs of Medicare, then quite obviously we ought to concentrate on that 5 percent. We have plans to do that. This is how we use this $12 billion, and we do it in a bipartisan way.

Honestly, the Senator from North Dakota is very open about it; he has a better idea how to use that money. He would take it to lower the monthly premium paid by beneficiaries in the new Part D prescription drug program.

I have at least two problems with that. First of all, the Congressional Budget Office's rule of thumb is that it costs around $5 billion to lower the estimated $35-a-month premium by just $1. You spend $5 billion and reduce the monthly premium from $35 down to $34. So if you take the $12 billion that is available in the Grassley-Baucus amendment and use that to lower the premium for the people he wants to lower the premium for, instead of paying $35 a month they will be paying $32.50 a month.

My colleagues have to weigh that against the use of this money where we want to focus in on fee for service as well as the new Medicare Program, zeroing in on trying to save Medicare money by managing the chronic disease situations of the 5 percent of the most sick people under Medicare.

So the underlying Grassley-Baucus amendment, I remind my colleagues, authorizes the Secretary to establish a number of projects in fee-for- service Medicare Programs that would provide these enhanced services and benefits for beneficiaries. These enhanced services or benefits include preventive services, chronic care coordination, and disease management services. These are very worthwhile projects and have the potential to help many beneficiaries get better care and considerably reduce the cost in the Medicare Program.

I don't know how many Members on the other side of the aisle have worked with this issue we are trying to put $6 billion toward, chronic disease management. A lot of people who have the same political philosophy as the Senator from North Dakota are very concerned about doing that. We are concerned on this side about doing it as well. That is why it is a bipartisan piece of legislation.

I don't know how, in good conscience, the Senator from North Dakota can take money that would reduce a monthly premium by $2.50, still costing $32.50, away from chronic disease management and a lot of other things that people on his side of the aisle are very concerned about.

It would not be possible to do these projects that we have in the underlying amendment. It seems to me that the Grassley-Baucus amendment with this bipartisan compromise of $6 billion enhanced membership in PPOs as well as $6 billion for chronic disease management in the older fee-for-service Medicare Program is preferable to the second-degree amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota.

I urge my colleagues to not support the amendment by the Senator from North Dakota.

This is the second or third time I have heard that seniors have voted on whether they like fee for service or Medicare+Choice, the argument being 89 percent of the people in this country are in fee for service. Eleven are in managed care, Medicare+Choice, HMO, whatever you want to call it. That is true for the Nation as a whole.

But remember that in the vast geographical part of America HMOs are not available. In the State of Iowa, only 1 county out of 99 has an HMO for our seniors to join. We have 4,000 Iowans in Medicare+Choice. No place else in Iowa can my citizens get it. The Des Moines Register is always editorializing why more of Iowa cannot have Medicare+Choice so the seniors of our country have that opportunity.

But what is unfair about the 89 percent versus the 11 percent, and Senators making statements that it is so overwhelming that seniors do not like Medicare+Choice, is the fact that if more had that choice more would take it.

I use, as a basis for my statement, that in the larger cities of America a much higher percentage of seniors have decided to join Medicare+Choice. They do it voluntarily. They can go in one year and get out the next, if they don't like it. They have voted by a much higher percentage in favor of Medicare+Choice. They like it because they get more for their money. First, they do not have to pay Medigap insurance. Second, they might get things such as eye glasses and a better deal on prescription drugs than people who are in traditional Medicare fee for service. Where they have had a chance to have that option, a much higher percentage of seniors than 11 percent will join. All you have to do is talk to people in my State who go to Arizona, California, and Florida for maybe the winter and find out about what people in those States have when they join Medicare+Choice. They ask, Why can't we have that in more places in the country?

A couple of speakers on the other side of the aisle have talked about wasting money with Medicare+Choice. I think you ought to ask the seniors who join and who like it. That is a much higher percentage than 11 percent in a lot of the cities. It is not a fair comparison to imply that since only 11 percent of the people in the country have it and because such a high percentage can't get it that Medicare+Choice is not desired by seniors of America.

Our underlying legislation, the Grassley-Baucus bill, is going to make that opportunity more available for people down the road as we bring in new options. What we want to do in the underlying bill is give our seniors the right to choose. Not enough of them have a right to choose. They have a right to choose prescription drugs. They don't want to join for prescription drugs if they don't have to. They have a right to choose between traditional Medicare. If seniors say they are satisfied with what they have, I can say to those seniors that they can keep what they have. It is their choice. But it you want to go over here and join something that has more options, you will have that right to choose. You should have that right to choose.

One of the complaints people made about the President's program was that if you were going to get prescription drugs you had to go over to a new type of Medicare. In traditional Medicare, you could not get prescription drugs--or at least not much of a program; at least not equal to what you could get over here in the new program.

That is where Senator Baucus and I disagree with the President of the United States. We believe in equal benefits. If you want prescription drugs, if you want to join it voluntarily, and if you want to stay in traditional Medicare fee for service, you can have prescription drugs. If you want to go over here and choose a new form and have prescription drugs with it, that is your choice.

The right to choose and fairness and equality and no pressure is the basis for this bipartisan Grassley-Baucus legislation. That is the basis for the compromise amendment that is before us which the Senator from North Dakota wants to detract from and use the money someplace else.

I think we need to keep this balanced approach. We need to keep the fairness, the equality, and no pressure and the right to choose. Seniors should have options just as other people have.

I yield the floor.

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

I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 166, S. 312.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the managers' amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Yes, $12 billion is a lot of money; $6 billion of that $12 billion he wants to take away from this provision, this bipartisan provision, that would be used for things he stands for. He has been talking about chronic disease management. He has been talking about managing to a better extent people with chronic diseases. We have put $6 billion into demonstration projects like that to save the taxpayers' money. Why? Because 5 percent of the seniors cause 50 percent of the costs to Medicare. That is why those demonstration projects are very important. That is why I hope you will vote against this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. In S. 1, beneficiaries who are enrolled in both Medicaid and Medicare will continue to receive the generous drug coverage that they currently know through the Medicaid program.

Some of my colleagues have argued that by having dual eligibles remain in the Medicaid program, Congress is treating these vulnerable seniors as second-class citizens and subjecting them to a lower quality benefit.

This is not the case. In fact, this letter from the Long Term Care Pharmacy Alliance applauds S. 1 for keeping the duals in Medicaid.

Specifically, the letter states, ``This approach will preserve the time-tested safeguards designed to prevent medication errors and ensure quality care for the majority of these beneficiaries in the institutional setting.''

The policy decision to cover the drug cost for dual eligibles in Medicaid was not made in vacuum. These vulnerable citizens deserve the best benefit available, which is the benefit provided through Medicaid. I also remind my colleagues that the intent of this legislation is to expand prescription drug coverage to our senior citizens who do not have access to prescription drugs or who are faced with paying a large share of their income for their drug coverage.

This does not describe the current coverage experienced by those who are dually eligible.

These seniors currently have a drug benefit through the Medicaid program. In fact, many advocates and beneficiaries describe and know this benefit to be very generous.

Medicaid was created to assist individuals who do not have the means to pay for their share of health care costs. That is a responsibility shared between the Federal Government and the States. Medicaid pays for many benefits that Medicare does not.

We all know that the purpose of S. 1 is to provide prescription drugs to seniors that do not currently have access to drugs or are paying extremely high drug costs.

However, recognizing the costs associated with covering the cost of providing prescription drug coverage to the dual eligible population, S. 1 does provide nearly 18 billion in new Federal dollars to compensate States for some of these costs.

This is because S. 1 provides minimum standards that ensure that every aspect of the benefit provided through Medicaid is the same high quality that is provided through part D of the Medicare program.

I remind my colleagues that adoption of this amendment will not expand coverage at all; it will simply shift the cost to the Federal Government and in time to the other Medicare beneficiaries.

In closing, I remind my colleagues that S. 1 helps to deliver care that is consistent with current law and is familiar to vulnerable beneficiaries.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to print the letter to which I referred in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we delay the vote so I can do some amendments that have been agreed to--a bipartisan list of amendments--to get them out of the way at this time.

Mr. President, I send a modification of Senator Mikulski's amendment to the desk on municipal health services and ask unanimous consent that it be modified.

Mr. President, I send a modification to Senator Lincoln's amendment No. 1067 on kidney disease to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be modified.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be temporarily set aside and that the following amendments be called up en bloc: No. 1014, by Senator Bond, study of pharmacy services; No. 1015, by Senator Dodd, study of blind and disabled; No. 1059, by Senator Hatch, HHS review; No. 1106, by Senator Hatch, citizens councils; No. 1086, by Senator Murkowski, pharmacy access; No. 1067, by Senator Lincoln, kidney disease; No. 1033, by Senator Mikulski, municipal health services; No. 935, by Senator Lincoln, geriatric GME; No. 959, by Senator Lincoln, physical therapy demo; No. 1038, by Senator Jeffords, critical access hospital; No. 1095, by Senator Johnson, therapy management.

I further ask unanimous consent that these amendments be agreed to en bloc and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Two things for my colleagues to consider during the consideration of how to vote on this amendment: No. 1 is the money that is available to pay for his amendment, an offset, is the very same amount of money we, Senator Baucus and I, are using to offset the cost of a lot of demonstration projects that colleagues have asked us to do, a lot of minor amendments they have asked us to do. If that money is not there, there cannot be consideration given. That is not a threat; it is just a practical aspect of how the budget law works.

Secondly, remember, these dual eligibles are being taken care of very well

in our underlying legislation. The point being, they will not be taken care of better. It is just it is going to cost the Federal Government more.

I hope you will take those things into consideration and vote down this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, first of all, let me make very clear that we know that Medigap is very important as part of Medicare. We leave that untouched as it relates to 1965 model Medicare. In fact, many of my Iowa constituents want to keep that. But we as a policy matter have made it a very conscious choice to prevent the sale of wraparound Medigap plans for the new Part D drug benefit. This policy makes sense considering drug plans could be different everywhere else in the United States.

It is impossible to standardize Medigap policies like we did about 15 years ago so that seniors don't get ripped off. But the Congressional Budget Office tells us this new Medigap plan that is before us now will increase the cost of our bill. The cost of this amendment is $1.5 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That is because of the increased utilization that comes from having additional insurance.

I share the Senator's concern with gaps in coverage. I wish we didn't have any.

But we believe participating drug plans--especially drug plans delivered by PPOs--will offer benefits in a comprehensive fashion, lessening the need for expensive supplemental policies.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

I commend Senator Hagel and Senator Ensign because they have been working very carefully over the last few years to help move this process along. They have had a different approach than I have had. I have had what I call a comprehensive, universal, voluntary approach. They have

had one that is more targeted toward low-income people and toward catastrophic. We deal with that in our legislation, but we are very comprehensive. We are very universal. I don't attack their attempt, but it is just not as good as what is before the Senate. S. 1 already reflects the influence of their plan by providing a drug discount card which will give seniors access to discounted drug prices.

I would like to point out a few things. The Hagel-Ensign plan has two laudable objectives: to protect seniors against catastrophic costs and to ensure that low-income seniors are fully protected.

I am happy to report that S. 1 already meets these goals. S. 1 provides a generous protection for low-income beneficiaries, very generous. It also covers fully 90 percent of beneficiaries' out-of- pocket costs beyond $3,700. Most seniors don't have catastrophic drug costs and thus would not see any benefit from the coverage in the Hagel-Ensign plan. S. 1, on the other hand, would provide a significant basic benefit to most seniors each year. Passing a drug bill that most seniors would see no benefit from is a prescription for disaster. I am afraid of that.

So S. 1 already meets the main goals of the Hagel-Ensign plan, but it provides additional value to a much broader group of beneficiaries as well, the underlying bill, the one that they amend, the one they would decimate.

Another thing S. 1 does very well is use competition to maximize value to the taxpayers. There has been some concern that S. 1 doesn't have as much competitive reform as many of us would have preferred. But the Hagel-Ensign plan has far less reform and is much more government run.

I would like to explain: First, this amendment would rule out any true competition in the delivery of Medicare drug benefits. S. 1 would let private drug plans assume a modest amount of financial risk, giving them an incentive to drive hard bargains and keep taxpayers' costs down. It seems to me that is very significant--the difference between the underlying bill and their bill. We are going to drive drug prices down more through competition.

The Hagel-Ensign plan, it is pretty obvious from my point of view, allows for no such exemption, specifically mandating that the Government--in this case we are talking about the taxpayers--bears all the financial risk for delivering the benefit, much as Senator Bob Graham's did the last year when we debated this very issue.

Under this amendment, the benefit would be delivered just like other Medicare benefits are today--by contractors that merely pay the claims that come in without any effort whatsoever, no effort to contain costs.

Second, the Hagel amendment doesn't include any of the improvements to the Medicare Program that President Bush has proposed and our bill includes. It does not include the role for private preferred provider organization plans to deliver an improved Medicare benefit package. It doesn't make modern innovations such as disease management services or rational cost sharing available to beneficiaries who choose them. It simply dumps a catastrophic drug benefit on to the 1965 vintage Medicare system.

What the people of this country need is improvement in Medicare, strengthening of Medicare, voluntary, universal, comprehensive. The Ensign plan wouldn't improve S. 1, but it would make it substantially worse.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 990, previously adopted, be modified with language I send to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dayton's amendment, No. 960, be modified with the modification that I send to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the vote by which amendment No. 1040 was adopted.

I am sorry, No. 1041.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside, amendment No. 1096 be called up, adopted, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Collins amendment, amendment No. 989, be modified with modifications that I send to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be temporarily set aside and that the following amendments be called up en bloc: No. 1122, Brownback; No. 1074, Coleman; No. 1023, Collins; No. 1114, Kyl; No. 1115, Kyl; No. 1045, Chambliss; No. 1058, Craig; No. 1117, Baucus; No. 1044, Bayh; No. 1056, Shelby; No. 996, Reed of Rhode Island; Bond amendment No. 1013; Kyl, No. 1128; Collins, No. 989, as modified; Dole, No. 1126, with Edwards added as a cosponsor; Reed of Rhode Island, No. 996; Specter, No. 1118; Specter, No. 1085.

I ask unanimous consent that these amendments and the following pending amendments be adopted en bloc and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table: Amendment No. 1017, Allard; No. 968, Harkin; No. 948, Graham of South Carolina; No. 960, Dayton; No. 1054, Feingold; No. 1030, Enzi.

Thank you. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request to correct a previous unanimous consent request. In a previous unanimous consent request, I referred to amendment No. 990 when I meant to refer to the previously adopted Murray amendment No. 961.

I ask unanimous consent to make that change.

I referred to the Kyl amendment No. 1128 when I meant to refer to Kyl amendment No. 1121.

I also ask unanimous consent to make that change.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, is there no discussion necessary on the amendment?

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the pending amendments.

Yes, Senator Bunning, I remember your submitted language regarding Adult Day Care.

Yes, this is true, and I apologize for the inaccurate information and misunderstanding provided to you and your staff from the Finance Committee on this issue. The language included in the base bill instead is based on Senator Santorum's bill.

Yes, that is my understanding, as well.

I will be happy to work with both of you and our staffs to rectify this problem. Adult day care is an important issue, and being that the Senate and House of Representatives will have different language on this issue, it must be conferenced in a way to ensure that all with interests in this matter, including interested provider and senior organizations, are involved and approving of the final adult day care language. I am looking forward to further working with both of you on this matter.

I agree.

repeal of therapy caps

I thank both the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Arkansas for their comments and for withdrawing the amendment. As you may know, I asked CMS Administrator Scully at the Finance Committee markup to further delay implementation of these beneficiary caps. Unfortunately, as a result of the Senate Budget Resolution constraints, I do not have Medicare dollars to repeal the beneficiary cap on therapy services. I agree that this arbitrary limit does not make sense and have sought to address this issue in the past. I will work in conference to enact a therapy cap moratorium and appreciate your hard work and passion on this issue.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Are we now ready for third reading?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following passage of S. 1, the bill be held at the desk; further, when the Senate receives from the House the companion measure to S. 1 the Senate proceed to its consideration, all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the text of S. 1 as passed be inserted in lieu thereof; the bill then be read a third time and passed with the motion to reconsider laid upon the table; further, that the Senate then insist on its amendments and request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees with a ratio of 5 to 4; finally, with that action, I ask unanimous consent that passage of S. 1 be vitiated and the bill be placed back on the calendar.

Mr. President, we are about to take a historical vote.

Since 1965, Medicare hasn't covered prescription drugs. Now, 38 years later, we're changing that--on a strong bipartisan basis.

Because of this bill, on January 1, 2004, seniors across America will have immediate help with prescription drug costs. Moreover, on January 1, 2006, seniors will have access to affordable, comprehensive drug coverage as a permanent part of Medicare.

No longer will seniors have to make hard choices when it comes to paying for prescription drugs.

This bill also strengthens and improves Medicare, giving seniors more choices and better benefits than they have today.

At the same time, it brings long overdue Medicare equity to the people of Iowa and to other rural States.

We are on the verge of a major victory.

I urge my colleagues to support S. 1.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I understand the concerns of the Senators from Oregon, and look forward to working with them to reauthorize the TANF program in the coming months. I appreciate their concern for the need for Oregon to retain flexibility in TANF. I hope the Senator from Montana will agree that the Finance Committee, on both sides of the aisle, should discuss this issue as we move to reauthorize the TANF program.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11 o'clock today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to amendment No. 972 and that the amendment now be considered as being proposed by Senators Snowe, Bingaman, and Hatch; further, that following that vote, there be 2 minutes equally divided for further debate prior to a vote in relation to the Edwards amendment, No. 985, to be followed by 2 minutes equally divided and a vote in relation to the Graham amendment, No. 956, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the time until the votes be equally divided between the two managers or their designees, and I further modify the request to allow 4 minutes equally divided prior to the Edwards vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I yield the 2 minutes on this side to the Senator from Wyoming.

Madam President, I have to ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment because it costs $200 billion. We are working within a $400 billion package. I wish we could eliminate the gap, as well. What we are trying to do is help the most people who have the most need with the money we have. Most seniors will not be affected by the gap in coverage. Most seniors will not have drug spending in a year that exceeds the benefit limit.

According to the CBO, about 88 percent of the seniors will not even have prescription drug spending that exceeds the $4,500 limit.

The Senator from Florida calls the benefit limit a ``sick tax'' because he believes that seniors should not pay a premium for coverage for catastrophic costs. This is as if to say you should not pay for fire insurance if your house is not going to be on fire. Of course, that is not how insurance works. People purchase insurance to protect them against an unfortunate accident.

Let me say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, this is just for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. Then I will yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 6:30 the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to Durbin amendment No. 994, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Clinton amendment No. 1000, with no second-degree amendments in order to the amendments prior to the votes, and with 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to each vote after the first; further, that following those votes, the Senator from Iowa--me--be recognized to offer an amendment.

Yes.

And the Senator from Pennsylvania on our side.

Mr. President, I appreciate the intent of the amendment. However, I have significant concerns and must oppose it. The research provided by this amendment is unnecessary. It duplicates, in fact, existing authority in the HHS.

More importantly, this amendment contains two damaging provisions. It directs the Food and Drug Administration to include information coming from these studies in approved product labeling, effectively taking the sole authority of the FDA to regulate prescription drug labeling and giving it to other, nonexpert sources.

This amendment also changes the fundamental research mission of the National Institutes of Health.

Further, these changes have not been considered by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which has jurisdiction over these programs.

This amendment is unnecessary. I urge my colleagues to defeat it.

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

I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside.

I rise to offer an amendment for Senator Craig. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I am doing this for Senator Craig. I am going to yield the floor because Senator Craig is going to discuss his amendment tomorrow.

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 call up amendments Nos. 941, 961, and 983 en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be agreed to en bloc and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc: Amendments Nos. 941, 967, as modified; 961, 974, 983, and 1010.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9:15 tomorrow morning, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to Harkin amendment No. 991, to be followed by a vote in relationship to the Edwards amendment No. 1052; provided further that there be 2 minutes equally divided before each vote and that no second-degree amendments be in order to the amendments prior to the vote.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for myself and Senator Baucus and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

This is an amendment I have worked out with Senator Baucus after considerable consultation with many colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The amendment has two parts. First, it would permit the Secretary, starting in 2009, to designate an alternative payment system for PPOs in a limited number of regions that the Secretary has determined to be highly competitive. This alternate payment system would permit the Secretary to set the Federal contribution for participation plans solely based on the bids they submit to the Secretary. The Secretary would still be required to choose the three plans with the lowest credible bids to participate. The Federal contribution would be set for the three plans participating by the second lowest bid submitted.

The second thing the amendment would do is authorize the Secretary, also starting in 2009, to establish a number of projects in the fee- for-service Medicare Program. These projects would be designed to provide enhanced services or benefits to improve the quality of care provided to Medicare beneficiaries, to improve the health care delivery system under the Medicare Program, and lower expenditures in that program. The enhanced services or benefits would include preventive services, chronic care coordination, disease management services, or other services the Secretary determines will advance the purposes of these projects.

The total cost of this amendment would be $12 billion starting in the year 2009 and would be equally divided between the alternative payment system and the fee-for-service projects.

Mr. President, this amendment represents a very reasonable compromise on the question of how to introduce into the Medicare Advantage Program a more competitive payment system.

I thank everyone, and most especially Senator Baucus, for working so hard and in a cooperative spirit to develop this amendment now before the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for raising this important issue. He is correct that I have been working with the physician community, as well as the U.S. House of Representatives, to obtain a fuller understanding regarding the adequacy of the current physician formula under Medicare. We have learned that Medicare's current payment formula for physicians is problematic, and I agree that this issue should be addressed. We will continue our discussion, and objectively evaluate proposals that will update the payment formula for physicians.

Mr. President, the U.S. Postal Service provides a vital and important communication link for the Nation and the citizens of my home State of Iowa. Rural Letter Carriers play a special role and have a proud history as an important link in assuring the delivery of our mail. Rural letter carriers first delivered the mail with their own horses and buggies, later with their own motorcycles, and now in their own cars and trucks. They are responsible for maintenance and operation of their vehicles in all types of weather and road conditions. In the winter, snow and ice is their enemy, while in the spring, the melting snow and ice causes potholes and washboard roads. In spite of these quite adverse conditions, rural letter carriers daily drive over 3 million miles and serve 24 million American families on over 66,000 routes.

Although the mission of rural carriers has not changed since the horse and buggy days, the amount of mail they deliver has changed dramatically. As the Nation's mail volume has increased throughout the years, the Postal Service is now delivering more than 200 billion pieces of mail a year. The average carrier delivers about 2,300 pieces of mail a day to about 500 addresses.

Most recently, e-commerce has changed the type of mail rural letter carriers deliver. This fact was confirmed in a GAO study entitled ``U.S. Postal Service: Challenges to Sustaining Performance Improvements Remain Formidable on the Brink of the 21st Century,'' dated October 21, 1999. As this report explains, the Postal Service expects declines in its core business, which is essentially letter mail, in the coming years. The growth of e-mail on the Internet, electronic communications, and electronic commerce has the potential to substantially affect the Postal Service's mail volume.

First-Class mail has always been the bread and butter of the Postal Service's revenue, but the amount of revenue from First-Class letters is declining. E-commerce is providing the Postal Service with another opportunity to increase another part of its business. That is because what individuals and companies order over the Internet must be delivered, sometimes by the Postal Service and often by rural letter carriers. Currently, the Postal Service had about 33 percent of the parcel business. Rural letter carriers are now delivering larger volumes of business mail, parcels, and priority mail packages. But, more parcel business means more cargo capacity is necessary in postal delivery vehicles, especially in those owned and operated by rural letter carriers.

When delivering greeting cards or bills, or packages ordered over the Internet, rural letter carriers use vehicles they currently purchase, operate and maintain. In exchange, they receive a reimbursement from the Postal Service. This reimbursement is called an Equipment Maintenance Allowance, EMA. Congress recognizes that providing a personal vehicle to delivery the U.S. Mail is not typical vehicle use. So, when a rural letter carrier is ready to sell such a vehicle, it's going to have little trade-in value because of the typically high mileage, extraordinary wear and tear, and the fact that it is probably right-hand drive. Therefore, Congress intended to exempt the EMA allowance from taxation in 1988 through a specific provision for rural mail carriers in the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988.

That provision allowed an employee of the U.S. Postal Service who was involved in the collection and delivery of mail on a rural route, to compute their business use mileage deduction as 150 percent of the standard mileage rate for all business use mileage. As an alternative, rural letter carrier taxpayers could elect to utilize the actual expense method, business portion of actual operation and maintenance of the vehicle, plus depreciation. If EMA exceeded the allowable vehicle expense deductions, the excess was subject to tax. If EMA fell short of the allowable vehicle expenses, a deduction was allowed only to the extent that the sum of the shortfall and all other miscellaneous itemized deductions exceeded two percent of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income.

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 further simplified the tax returns of rural letter carriers. That Act permitted the EMA income and expenses ``to wash,'' so that neither income nor expenses would have to be reported on a rural letter carrier's return. That simplified taxes for approximately 120,000 taxpayers, but the provision eliminated the option of filing the actual expense method for employee business vehicle expenses. The lack of this option, combined with the dramatic changes the Internet is having on the mail, specifically on rural letter carriers and their vehicles, is a problem I believe Congress must address.

The mail mix is changing and already Postal Service management has, understandably, encouraged rural letter carriers to purchase larger right-hand

drive vehicles, such as Sports Utility Vehicles, SUVs, to handle the increase in parcel loads. Large SUVs are much more expensive than traditional vehicles. So without the ability to use the actual expense method and depreciation, rural letter carriers must use their salaries to cover vehicle expenses. Additionally, the Postal Service has placed 11,000 postal vehicles on rural routes, which means those carriers receive no EMA.

These developments have created a situation that is contrary to the historical Congressional intent of using reimbursement to fund the government service of delivering mail, and also has created an inequitable tax situation for rural letter carriers. If actual business expenses exceed the EMA, a deduction for those expenses should be allowed. To correct this inequity, I am introducing a bill today that reinstates the ability of a rural letter carrier to choose between using the actual expense method for computing the deduction allowable for business use of a vehicle, or using the current practice of deducting the reimbursed EMA expenses.

Rural letter carriers perform a necessary and valuable service and face may changes and challenges in this new Internet era. We must make sure that these public servants receive fair and equitable tax treatment as they perform their essential role in fulfilling the Postal Service's mandate of binding the Nation together.

I urge my colleagues to join Senators Bingaman, Daschle, Bunning, Rockefeller, Snowe, Thomas, Smith of Oregon, Conrad, Graham of Florida, Kerry, Breaux, Lincoln and myself in sponsoring this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Long-Term Care and Retirement Security Act. This legislation, which I sponsored in the 106th and 107th Congress with my distinguished colleague from Florida, Senator Bob Graham, would ease the tremendous cost of long- term care.

The bill that Senator Graham and I are re-introducing today would allow individuals a tax deduction for the cost of long-term care insurance premiums. Increasingly, Americans are interested in private long-term care insurance to pay for nursing home stays, assisted living, home health aides, and other services. However, most people find the policies unaffordable. The younger the person, the lower the insurance premium, yet most people aren't ready to buy a policy until retirement. A deduction would encourage more people to buy long-term insurance.

Our proposal would also give individuals or their care givers a $3,000 tax credit to help cover their long-term care expenses. This would apply to those who have been certified by a doctor as needing help with at least three activities of daily living, such as eating, bathing, or dressing. This credit would help care givers pay for medical supplies, nursing care and any other expenses incurred while caring for family members with disabilities.

One family that would benefit from this legislation is the Gardner family of Waterloo, IA. Ruth Gardner is a 70-year-old mother of nine who suffers from a degenerative tissue disorder, Scleroderma, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure and is a breast cancer survivor. For the last 3 years her nine children, their spouses and numerous grandchildren have worked tirelessly to fulfill Ms. Gardner's wish of spending her last months with dignity and respect at home.

While Ms. Gardner's wish may seem small, the task of managing her care is not. Each week family members meet to organize their schedules in an effort to provide over 20 hours of daily care for Ms. Gardner. Working relentlessly, and at a considerable cost, the Gardner family manages to provide around-the-clock care while balancing both work and their family lives. All this effort comes at a great cost, both emotionally and financially. The Gardners have been able to locate some funding to help support the care for Ms. Gardner; however, the family continues to bear considerable costs. These costs include weekly nursing visits that cost $102 per visit, emergency response service at $30 a month, daily hospice service at $32 an hour and not to mention the hours and hours of personal time donated by the family.

The Long-Term Care and Retirement Security Act would help the 22 million family caregivers like the Gardners. A $3,000 tax credit would help to pay for Ms. Gardner's monthly hospice care, weekly nurse visits or help to hire a nurse to cover some of the time that the family currently donates. This legislation would also help the increasing number of families placed in the difficult situation by allowing them to purchase long-term care insurance. Had this legislation been enacted earlier, long-term care insurance would

have been an affordable option for Ms. Gardner, alleviating the difficult situation that her family currently faces.

As it has in the past, the bill that Senator Graham and I are introducing today has been endorsed by both the AARP and the Health Insurance Association of America. A companion bill sponsored by Representatives Nancy Johnson, Karen Thurman and Earl Pomeroy is pending in the House of Representatives.

An aging nation has no time to waste in preparing for long-term care, and the need to help people afford long-term care is more pressing than ever. I look forward to working with Senator Graham and our colleagues in the Senate to get our bill passed into law as soon as possible.

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

It is my understanding that the Senator from New Mexico is ready to modify his amendment. With the modification, I accept that amendment. We would not have a vote. I urge we proceed to the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico for consideration of his modification.

The Senator from New Mexico will explain that.

As I indicated, we accept that amendment, and I would like to have it adopted on a voice vote.

We have had so many Democrat amendments that have been offered. We have reserved time for Republicans to fit in. It is my understanding that Senator Smith of Oregon is prepared to offer an amendment from our side. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Smith be recognized.

Mr. President, in answer to the distinguished Democrat whip, there is an effort being made at the staff level to put together a series of votes. In further response, we are not prepared at this point to ask unanimous consent, but we will have such a request to make for stacking of votes and an order for votes.

That is my understanding.