Floor Statements

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Specter, Daschle, Byrd, Leahy, Levin, Rockefeller, Corzine, Durbin, and Carper.

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

Madam President, I came to the floor two days ago to express my concern about the administration's detention policies with respect to three different categories of

individuals, and this is particularly in the period since 9/11.

One of those groups I spoke about was immigrants. There, of course, the concern has been underscored by the report done by the inspector general in the Department of Justice pointing out the abuses that have been engaged in by both the Department of Justice and the FBI with regard to immigrants after the 9/11 tragedy.

Another group I spoke about were material witnesses. There have been several abuses there. In some cases, I think the FBI has acknowledged that. I think, again, we have a serious issue there of adequate attention to civil liberties and human rights.

The third group I spoke about is the group designated by the Department of Defense and the President as so-called enemy combatants. That is a group my amendment deals with today.

The amendment is very straightforward with regard to these individuals. It requires a report. It says to the Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense, give the appropriate committees of the Congress a report within 90 days of the time this law becomes effective. The report shall indicate who these people are that the administration has designated as enemy combatants, and it shall tell us what plans the Department has with regard to charging these individuals with crimes, with regard to trying them for those crimes, and if there is an intention to repatriate some of these individuals to particular countries, to please advise us of that, but tell us something about who these individuals are and what you intend to do with them. That is the thrust of the amendment.

There is a proviso in the amendment that says if there is a national security problem that the Department or the Secretary of Defense sees in giving us any of this information, of course, that doesn't need to be included in the unclassified version of the report. That could be kept in a separate, classified annex and assigned whatever classification the Secretary determines is appropriate.

The administration is holding 3 individuals today--that I am aware of--in the United States as enemy combatants and is holding close to 700 at our military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In all cases, these individuals are being called incommunicado. They are given no access to counsel and no opportunity for judicial review as yet.

Let me say what I think should be obvious to everybody, and that is that I am not advocating that these individuals be released. What I am saying is that we should afford them the right to be charged with a crime. Tell us what action they have taken that justifies their incarceration, and set up some opportunity for them to be tried for those actions. Many of these enemy combatants have been in custody by our Government for well over 18 months--in some cases over 20 months.

President Bush announced recently--in the last 2 weeks--that 6 of the 700 or so of these enemy combatants will be tried by a military tribunal. As far as I know, there has been no indication yet as to what they will be tried for. There is no indication yet, or designation, or appointment of a military tribunal or commission to do the trying of these individuals. There has been no date set for these trials. But the President has said that 6 of the 680 or 700 individuals are eligible--I believe that is the phrase used by the Department of Defense and the White House--to be tried by military tribunals.

There are serious questions about how those tribunals will function, and I am sure there will be many debates about that. Even more serious is a question relating to those who remain in jail, who have not--as yet at least--been given any indication of charges, any indication of when trials might be conducted in relation to them.

The obvious question we need to be asking--we in the Congress--since we have an oversight responsibility over the administration, the executive branch, is, Where does the Government or this administration intend to go with regard to these individuals?

So far, the administration takes the position that once the President says someone is an enemy combatant, they can keep them incarcerated, presumably until the war on terrorism is over. But the President has said--and I think he is probably right--this war on terrorism is of indefinite duration; it is not a war that we can see the end of--at least not in the near future. It appears to be the President's view and the administration's view that these individuals can be kept as prisoners from now on, without the administration having an obligation to say who they are, without the administration having an obligation to charge them with a crime, without the administration having any obligation to afford them a hearing.

The administration takes the view that they do not come under the Geneva Convention, but evidently they come under none of the other procedural requirements that we have always thought applied in our system either.

In my view, this is not a tenable position. It is not consistent with the commitment to liberty and the rule of law on which this country was founded. We demand that other governments show greater respect for human rights than this, and we should be demanding better from our own Government as well.

The amendment is very straightforward and very modest, in my view. It simply says that the Secretary of Defense shall provide us with a report on the status of these detainees--provide that to the relevant committees of the Congress. Under the amendment, the report should include the name and nationality of the individuals involved, a statement as to whether our Government intends to charge them with some offense, or intends to repatriate them, or intends to release them-- whatever action we intend to engage in.

There is nothing in the amendment that biases what is done with these individuals in any way. In the case of the individuals for whom such a determination has not been made, we ask for a description of the process the Department of Defense is intending to follow and the timeline for actually making a decision regarding these individuals.

Madam President, I believe strongly that we have an obligation to require some accountability with regard to this set of individuals.

We have made provision in the amendment, as I said before, so that the Secretary can withhold any information from any report he deems to be information necessary to withhold for national security reasons.

The administration, in my view, needs to take some action and needs to advise the Congress on what it is doing with these people. If the individuals have committed crimes, let's see them charged with crimes. If they have not committed crimes, let's see them repatriated. Let's see some action taken. We in Congress need to understand what that action is. That is the thrust of the amendment. I hope it will receive broad bipartisan support.

I appreciate Senator Specter cosponsoring the amendment, as well as the other Members I mentioned. I believe there is at least one other Member who wishes to speak in behalf of the amendment. So I reserve the remainder of my time.

How much time remains?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam President, I will respond to a few of the points my colleagues from Alaska and Hawaii made. First, I will say what this amendment does not do. There is nothing in this amendment that restricts what action the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, or any other agency of the Government is permitted to take with regard to these enemy combatants. This is an amendment that asks for a report. It does not say certain action has to be taken with regard to these individuals. It says tell us the status.

Second, there is nothing in this amendment that affects court cases. If there are court cases related to any of these enemy combatants, then it is perfectly appropriate for the Justice Department to indicate who the person is or which individuals are involved and say they are subject to pending litigation, if that is the case. But the reality is, if one is designated an enemy combatant, they are taken out of the court system. That designation takes one out of the court system and puts them in the custody of the military. It is the position of our military that from that point on, one has no right to a hearing, no right to be charged, is an enemy combatant, and accordingly they will deal with them as they choose.

The Senator from Alaska says this is something that is probably in the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. I think that sort of makes my case. These people are in nowhere land. They are in limbo.

There is an article that came out in the morning paper in my home State in Albuquerque where there was a little report on the speech I gave 2 days ago talking about this problem, and I will read a sentence from that report: White House spokesman Taylor Gross referred questions about Bingaman's speech and proposed amendment to the Justice and Defense Departments. A Justice Department spokeswoman referred questions to the Defense Department. A spokesman for the Defense Department declined to comment.

The reality is, we are allowing the administration to put these people in a category and then take the position that no rights apply to these individuals. There is no obligation on the Department of Justice to follow procedures with regard to these individuals. There is no obligation on the Department of Defense.

There is nothing in my amendment that questions the treatment of these individuals. Others have questioned the treatment of these individuals. I have not questioned the treatment of these individuals in Guantanamo. There is nothing in the amendment that questions the treatment of these individuals.

Also, the point my good friend from Hawaii has made, that this would give al-Qaida or some other terrorist organization information that could be useful to them about when individuals might be released, first, we have a proviso that anything the Department of Defense determines might be contrary to national security, they should keep it classified. They can give it any level of classification they want to give it. If they want to say it is code level classification, they can do that, whatever classification they think is appropriate.

I am glad to yield to my colleague from Illinois.

Madam President, in response to that question, let me say that is exactly right. We have gone out of our way to make it clear the Departments can keep secret, can keep code classification, whatever classification level the Department decides is appropriate, any information they think is vital to our national security. So we are saying, as to the information that is not of that type, tell us what can be told about who these people are and what the intent is as far as what to do with them.

Madam President, in response to that follow-on question, that is exactly correct. The Senator from Illinois is exactly right in pointing out that in what we are trying to do, we are not-- this is not an amendment I am offering 6 weeks after the 9/11 tragedy. This is an amendment I am offering 20 months or more after the 9/11 tragedy. We know that many of these individuals have been there well over a year and a half. It is time that we in Congress exercise our oversight responsibility and say: Who are they? What are they intending to be charged with? I do not anticipate that these are individuals we are going to some day say we have decided to release. I assume that we have them there for good reason, and that we are going to prosecute them and that we are going to find them guilty. That is my assumption, assuming the system works as it is intended to work.

So my thought is, let's get some idea of where we are going so that we begin to build in some accountability and begin to recognize what we historically have recognized, and that is that there are certain legal protections that apply if one is jailed by the United States Government. There are certain legal rights that we will be afforded.

In response to the question, I think the Senator from Illinois makes a very good point. If we are going to proclaim our commitment to liberty and to freedom as we always have, and as I certainly want to be able to do, and if we are going to insist that U.S. citizens, when they are captured

in overseas incidents, whether they be military or civilian, that they be given some reasonable treatment through the court systems of those countries, then we have to have some adherence to reasonable legal process for these individuals that we have incarcerated. That is all I am asking. Tell us what we are going to do. If they come back and say we are not going to do anything, then we can see whether a follow-on amendment or follow-on action is appropriate.

This amendment simply says, give us a report. Tell us the status of these individuals; tell us your plans with regard to these individuals; or give us some idea whether or not you are going to charge them. If you are going to charge them with something, tell us what you might charge them with. If you decide to make that decision later on, tell us when you might decide to make that decision.

It is the most modest of amendments. I hope very much it will be supported by my colleagues on a bipartisan basis.

How much time remains?

I retain that and I yield the floor.

I appreciate the courtesy. I will use my remaining 50 seconds.

Madam President, first of all, if the Secretary of Defense believes the release of any of these names compromises our national security, he is given full reign to keep that information classified at any level of classification he decides is appropriate. So we are not in any way interfering with national security.

In my view, it is not appropriate for us to say, look, if you want to check on them, get on a plane and go down to Guantanamo. We and the American people need to be persuaded there is some adequate due process and legal process being followed.

Regarding the idea of these military tribunals, there have been no tribunals established. The President said 6 individuals out of the nearly 700 are eligible to be considered or to be tried by military tribunals. There are no military tribunals established.

I urge support for the amendment and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is a very straightforward amendment which just requires a report from the Secretary of Defense on those people we are incarcerating under the status of ``enemy combatant'' and what our intentions are with regard to charging them or making a decision on charging them.

We have a proviso in there that if the release of any of this information will jeopardize national security, the Secretary can withhold that and put it in a classified annex and give it any level of classification the Secretary determines is appropriate.

So it seems to me essential that the Congress exercise some oversight of this process. If we are going to be a nation that stands for liberty and freedom and legal process, then we ought to ensure that everyone who has been taken into custody in our country be afforded some legal protection. There are no military tribunals that have been established. The problem is not resolved. We should ask for this report.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, we in America firmly believe that what distinguishes our country in the history of the world is our commitment to individual liberty and freedom. At the bedrock of a free society is the obligation that the Government takes on to afford individuals certain legal protections, the most basic of which is the freedom from incarceration unless the Government can prove that you have committed a crime.

Today we are witnessing the abandonment by this current administration of our historic commitment to this most basic legal protection. The core element of due process law is the requirement that if individuals are taken into custody by the Government, then within some reasonable time, they will be advised of the crimes of which they are accused. They will be charged with those crimes and they will be prosecuted.

This administration, working through the Justice Department, headed by Attorney General Ashcroft, and the Pentagon, headed by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, has taken the position that as to many individuals it now has in custody, no such legal requirements attach.

It is my view that regardless of whether the person in custody is an American citizen or a foreigner, regardless of where he or she is apprehended, and regardless of the Government's preconceptions about his or her guilt, that person should be entitled to some reasonable standard of due process. Secrecy and disregard for the rule of law are not the ideals upon which a free and open society are based.

To demonstrate the basis for my concern, I would like to describe to the Senate some of the actions that have been taken in recent months by the administration. These actions fall into three different categories. There are those that affect immigrants. There are those that affect so- called material witnesses. There are those that affect so-called enemy combatants.

Let me start first with immigrants. In the case of immigrants, the inspector general in the Department of Justice has recently documented the abusive treatment of many immigrants by the FBI and the Justice Department in the period since 9/11. According to the IG's recent report, many immigrants were detained following 9/11 even though the FBI had no evidence that they were connected to terrorism. The report states that some detainees did not receive their so-called charging documents for more than 9 months after they were arrested. Even after they were charged, many detainees were held in ``extremely restrictive conditions of confinement'' for ``weeks and months with no clearance investigation being conducted.''

The Attorney General would have us accept with no dissent that extraordinary times require extraordinary measures, even if it is at the expense of individual civil liberties. In my view, the fact that these immigrants were detained on alleged immigration violations does not permit the Government to totally disregard their rights. While the 9/11 detainees were entitled to be represented by an attorney at their own expense, the inspector general found in many cases that the Government made it very difficult for detainees to obtain an attorney or to speak with that attorney on a regular basis.

I hope the newly established Department of Homeland Security, which now has jurisdiction over immigration violators, will follow the inspector general's recommendation that it ensure that ``detainees have reasonable access to counsel, legal telephone calls, and visitation privileges consistent with their classification.''

I am also troubled by the veil of secrecy which the administration has drawn around these detainees. The public and the Congress have a right to know the names of individuals detained in connection with the September 11 investigation. If we had had timely knowledge of the names of people discussed in the inspector general's report, we might have been able to shine some light on the process to ensure those individuals' rights were not violated.

Unfortunately, a recent circuit court of appeals decision allows the Department of Justice to continue circumventing the Freedom of Information Act. The decision is likely to be appealed, and I hope that the earlier court decision ordering the release of the names will be upheld. In the meantime, however, I hope the Attorney General will do the right thing and voluntarily release the names of the September 11 detainees. I was pleased to join Senators Feingold, Kennedy, Durbin, and Corzine last week in formally making that request. I hope the Attorney General will agree.

Now let me speak about material witnesses.

The second way in which the administration has been detaining people is under the authority of the material witness statute. This little- known statute permits the Government to arrest and detain a potential witness whose testimony is material in a criminal proceeding and who is likely to flee. The statute says:

Release of a material witness may be delayed for a

reasonable period of time until the deposition of the witness

can be taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure.

The issue here is the manner in which the statute has been applied and, in addition, the unreasonable length of time the administration has detained some individuals under this statute.

On the first point, the administration appears to be using the material witness statute to detain some individuals without any intention of ever calling them to testify before a grand jury. In fact, a Washington Post article published last November reviewed 44 material witness cases. In 20 of the 44, the material witnesses were never called to testify.

I share the concern of those who believe the administration is misapplying the statute in order to hold individuals without due process while those individuals themselves are being investigated. I would like to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, but their answers to a recent House Judiciary Committee inquiry shed little light on their intentions. In those answers, they stated:

We can only provide information about those material

witnesses whose status has been made public in court

proceedings.

The administration also refuses to provide the public with the specific number of people who have been detained, saying only that:

As of January 2003, the total number of material witnesses

detained in the course of the September 11 investigation was

fewer than 50.

Again, the public and the Congress are faced with the veil of secrecy. Tell me, Mr. President, what is the harm to national security in revealing the specific number of people who have been detained under the material witness statute or the list of charges that have been brought against such people? The public and the Congress have a right and an obligation to know.

One last troubling point is the unreasonable length of time many material witnesses have been held. Again, the Justice Department refuses to provide any specific information. I know Senator Leahy has written to the Attorney General for more information on actions that have been taken under the material witness statute. He has requested a response by the end of this week. I very much hope that that response will be forthcoming. We need to know more about the Justice Department's use of the material witness statute, and the Congress needs to study whether changes should be made to ensure that due process is followed for individuals who are detained under this statute.

Finally, we come to the third category of individuals who have been detained; that is, individuals the administration deems to be ``enemy combatants.''

To date, the administration is holding three individuals within the United States as enemy combatants, and close to 700 are being held at the United States military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In all cases, these individuals are being held incommunicado, with no access to counsel and no opportunity for judicial review.

It is not unreasonable to ask who qualifies as an ``enemy combatant.'' Since the Justice Department will not reveal the identities of many of the people it is holding, it is very difficult to tell. Most of these individuals were taken into custody in Afghanistan or Pakistan and are alleged to have been engaged in action against United States troops. At least a few of those held as enemy combatants are citizens of allied countries. According to the Financial Times, nine of those being held in Guantanamo are British citizens. At least one, Jose Padilla, is a U.S. citizen being held in South Carolina. Another, Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, is a citizen of Qatar and had been scheduled to go on trial this month in Illinois on charges of lying to the FBI. With the trial date approaching last month, the Justice Department removed him from the court system and jailed him in a Navy brig in South Carolina. Now that he is an enemy combatant and is classified as such, our Government takes the position that he need not be charged with any crime, he need not be given a hearing, his attorney is denied the right to see him, and he can be jailed indefinitely by the military in this condition.

President Bush has announced that 6 of the 700 or so ``enemy combatants'' will be tried by a military tribunal. There are serious questions about the procedures intended to be used in those trials. But even more serious questions relate to those who remain in jail without any prospect of charges being brought or trials being conducted.

The obvious question is: Where do we go from here with regard to these individuals?

The administration has labeled these people ``enemy combatants'' and has asserted the right to keep them incarcerated, presumably until our enemies are vanquished. But the President has made it clear that the ``war on terrorism'' in which we are engaged is of indefinite duration.

Is it the President's view that we can keep these individuals in prison in Guantanamo from now on without revealing who they are, without charging them with crimes, without affording them a hearing at which they can protest their innocence?

This is not a tenable position. This is not consistent with the commitment to liberty and the rule of law on which this country was founded. We demand that other governments show greater respect for human rights than this, and we should demand better from our own Government as well.

Let me say what I hope is obvious; that is, I am not advocating the release of these individuals. What I am advocating is that we afford them the right to be charged and to be tried for their alleged crimes. Most of those designated as enemy combatants have been in custody for more than 18 months without being charged.

The Bush administration takes the position that they are not prisoners of war and, therefore, do not enjoy the protections of the Geneva Convention. Our Federal courts take the position that these individuals are in Guantanamo, not within territory controlled by the United States, and therefore the courts have no authority to ensure that basic rights are protected.

In the case of Al Odah, et al, v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia sidestepped any responsibility for the enforcement of the Constitution by deciding that it had no jurisdiction over the detainees at Guantanamo. The argument used was that since the United States only occupies Guantanamo Naval Base under a lease it signed with Cuba in 1903, therefore, the court reasoned that Cuba is the sovereign nation with jurisdiction in Guantanamo and presumably the detainees should look to Castro for a remedy.

The end result of all this legal maneuvering and sidestepping is that with regard to these individuals, our own Government has successfully managed to avoid and evade any obligation to abide by procedural due process.

In the view of our Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense, there is

no obligation to bring charges, there is no obligation to afford a hearing within a reasonable period of time, there is no obligation to permit legal counsel, and, in fact, there is no obligation to reveal who is being held in this enemy combatant status.

The Attorney General further asserts that if a prosecution in the court system is not proceeding in a promising manner, he has the prerogative of unilaterally removing the defendant from the court system and jailing him for an indefinite period without the need to prove the individual's guilt.

The administration's treatment of immigrants, material witnesses, and persons labeled as ``enemy combatants'' makes a mockery of our professed commitment to individual rights. Our great Nation does not have to abandon its Constitution and trample on the individual rights we hold dear to deal with the threats of a modern world. Terrorism is a threat to our Nation, but the undermining of our constitutional rights is also a threat.

The idea of America is admired and emulated all over the world, in large part because we believe that the right to liberty is fundamental. In those circumstances when the State has reason to deprive a person of liberty, that individual should have the right to know what he or she is charged with and to have access to meaningful review of those charges.

I urge the President, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Defense to advise the Congress and the American people of the steps they will take to afford basic procedural rights to all those I have discussed here. Too many generations of Americans have fought to protect these rights for us to look the other way as they are being denied and disregarded. Our children and grandchildren would expect better of us, and we should expect better of ourselves.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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, this is an amendment I am offering on behalf of myself, Senator Daschle, Senator Leahy, Senator Durbin, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Feinstein, Senator Harkin, Senator Clinton, and Senator Corzine.

This year in his State of the Union Address, President Bush announced a new global AIDS initiative which would provide $15 billion in U.S. funding over the next 5 years. Unfortunately, when the time came for the President to submit his budget and to stand behind that commitment to $15 billion, the budget did not reflect that commitment.

In the fiscal year 2004 budget request, the President asked Congress to appropriate at least $1 billion less than what he had spoken of in this new initiative. Rather than requesting that Congress appropriate $3 billion for these issues, the President effectively said in his budget that less funding was good enough this year.

This chart points out, in the bottom line, the President's budget request. As you can see, it is a total of $1.9 billion for the next fiscal year. The other line on this chart is the level at which we have authorized funding, which is consistent with what the President asked for in his State of the Union speech.

Using the most liberal of calculations, the President's budget asks for $1.9 billion for this AIDS effort. This includes $200 million pledged to the global fund in fiscal year 2004.

What makes this reduction even more difficult to swallow is that at the same time we were asking for less than we promised as a nation with regard to AIDS funding, we also saw in the budget of the administration requests for reductions in funding for critical global health issues in other areas as well.

I am very proud to say that this May, the Congress chose to realize the President's original vision when it authorized, over the next 5 years, the $15 billion the President asked for in his State of the Union speech. This was legislated as the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003.

Within this $3 billion, we provided that $1 billion could be directed to the global fund. So Congress did authorize what the President talked about in his State of the Union speech.

The President is now, of course, in the midst of a tour through Africa. He is meeting with the leaders of those countries. Many of those countries have suffered from the ravages of these diseases. Of course, he is discussing, as he should, the fight against HIV/AIDS, against tuberculosis, against malaria.

The morning news report that I saw in the New York Times I think sums it up well. It has quotations. The President said yesterday in Botswana:

The people of this nation have the courage and resolve to

defeat this disease and you will have a partner in the United

States of America.

He went on to say:

This is the deadliest enemy Africa has ever faced, and you

will not face this enemy alone.

There is another article I have from the New York Times that speaks of the President's trip to South Africa yesterday. It indicates the following: He talked about his AIDS proposal. He did not mention that a House subcommittee is likely to cut funds for the first year of the $15 billion 5-year program below the $3 billion sought by legislation that Mr. Bush signed this spring. The program would provide help to 14 countries. Twelve of those countries are in Africa.

The question for us in the Congress is whether we will vote now to fully realize the President's stated intentions or will we succumb to political expediency and essentially go along with taking credit for a $15 billion commitment while in fact doing substantially less than that. I believe a promise made should be a promise that is kept.

The amendment I am offering today, along with Senator Leahy and Senator

Daschle, simply states that we will appropriate the amounts Congress and the President have pledged to commit to these programs, and that we will do so without reducing our funding commitments to other important global health programs.

The urgency behind our promise is borne out in a report that was released this week in which the United Nations finds that the greatest impediment to development in poor countries around the world today is

Mr. President, I thank Senator Daschle, the leader, for his strong support for this effort.

I had the good fortune to be with him in Botswana last August and underscore and emphasize the very points he made about the enormous need that exists in that country and throughout the African continent.

I yield all but 2 minutes of the remaining time to my colleague from Illinois. I reserve 2 minutes to summarize at the end.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

I will yield to the Senator from California who had a question or two she wanted to ask at this point.

That is exactly the commitment the President has made.

Mr. President, in response to the question, let me just say that is the thrust of the amendment. The amendment is a sense of the Congress. It is the sense of the Congress that when appropriations bills do come to the floor of the Senate, we will agree to fully appropriate the money needed to meet this $3 billion per year commitment. That is not the amount the President has asked for. He has asked for substantially less. It is not what early indications are the House Subcommittee on Appropriations is likely to provide.

We are also concerned, of course, about the availability of those funds in our own Appropriations Committee.

So this would make it clear to the whole world, we are committed to providing these funds, even if it is outside the bounds of the budget resolution--which it may well have to be. But we will provide the funds necessary to meet the commitment the President has made and continues to make on this trip to Africa.

I would like to reserve the remainder of my time. I know Senator Lugar wishes to reserve the remainder of his time so we can have short statements. We will not use the full amount of time reserved.

At this point, Senator Reed is here wishing to speak so I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stabenow be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Let me begin by thanking the Senator from Indiana for his willingness to support the amendment and urge others to. That is very important. It is important we pass this amendment by a large bipartisan vote. He indicated he believes the President is sincere in his commitment to provide this $15 billion over 5 years. I certainly agree. I believe the President is sincere as well. I believed that when he said it in his State of the Union speech. I still believe it.

Unfortunately, the fact we are faced with is we have authorized the $15 billion to be spent consistent with what the President asked for. But as we all know, there is a difference between what is authorized and what is appropriated. And the early indications are the appropriation may not be that generous or that robust.

That is the reason for my amendment.

The early indications I am referring to are the President's own budget request. In his request to the Congress, the President did not ask for $3 billion this first year. He asked for, perhaps in a most generous reading of his budget request, $1.9 billion; $200 million of which would be committed to this global AIDS fund. We had authorized $3 billion, $1 billion for the global AIDS fund, $2 billion on other bilateral programs and AIDS initiatives. All I am saying is, we need to step in and, as is appropriate under the Constitution, appropriate the funds the President is talking about in Africa, that we have authorized to be spent.

I believe that is the least we can do. This amendment is a sense of the Congress that we are committed to that when the appropriations bills come to the floor later this year. We will all have a chance at that point to look at those bills and see whether or not the funding is present.

If it is, fine; if it is not, we can add funding at that time before we complete action on those bills. I do not subscribe to the view that the President's commitment of $15 billion is contingent upon all sorts of other things. I think it is a commitment this country has made. I commend the President for it. I commend him for taking this trip to Africa. I know those countries have desperate needs for which that funding could be used. And this pandemic that we are seeing worldwide, but most particularly on the African Continent, is something that deserves our top priority. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this sense-of-the-Congress amendment and then, of course, I will urge them to support following through when the appropriations bills actually come to the floor. That is when the real decision point comes. This is a great indication that the Senate is standing behind the President, behind its commitments, and that is exactly what we should do.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the Record reflect we are updating the asset test to a limit of $10,000 per individual and $20,000 per couple.

Mr. President, this is what the bill was intended to say. It is exactly what we have shared with your staff. It is just that there was a typo in it.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, be added as a cosponsor.

I also ask unanimous consent that we be allowed 2 minutes to advocate for the amendment and the opposition get 2 minutes as well.

Mr. President, I will take one of those 2 minutes and Senator Domenici the other.

This is a Bingaman-Domenici amendment. The purpose of it is not to eliminate the asset test. That was an earlier amendment I offered and then withdrew. Instead, it is to update the asset test, where you would still be required to demonstrate that your income was below poverty or in that range, but instead of having to demonstrate that your total combined assets were only $4,000, you would be able to show that they were less than $10,000.

This also eliminates the paperwork burden that currently is imposed in most States on people who are required to itemize their assets and essentially provide a full financial statement to get the full low- income benefit.

We think this is a needed update on the asset test. It will allow a lot more people to get the full benefit.

I yield the remaining time to Senator Domenici.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Change of Vote

Mr. President, I request that the manager allot me 5 minutes.

I thank the Senator from Montana.

Amendment No. 1066

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to explain amendment No. 1066, which is scheduled to be one of the amendments considered in this next block of amendments.

Mr. President, I am concerned that the prescription drug coverage included in S. 1 is not sufficient to fully meet the needs of our seniors and that those seniors who elect to participate in Part D and get this prescription drug benefit will be restricted from purchasing supplemental coverage.

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that in 2006--which is the year this legislation really takes effect, this benefit occurs--the average Medicare beneficiary will spend $3,160 per year on prescription drugs. Under the current plan, those individuals will have $1,700 that same year in out-of-pocket expenses in addition to the $420 they pay in Part D premiums. Therefore, the average Medicare beneficiary who elects Part D will have approximately $2,100 per year in out-of-pocket expenses. This translates, of course, into $175 a month. That is a significant expenditure for a lot of individuals and couples on a fixed income.

It would seem reasonable to allow these individuals who want to protect themselves against unpredictable and increasing prescription drug expenses to purchase supplemental insurance coverage that would allow additional prescription drugs to be purchased.

Medigap was designed to fill the gaps in Medicare. A sizable gap exists in the prescription drug benefit we are offering in this bill. Yet the current bill specifically prohibits seniors from filling that gap with a Medigap policy.

Section 103 of S. 1, which is the bill we are considering, explicitly prohibits people who elect Part D prescription drug coverage from purchasing additional prescription drug coverage as part of any Medigap plan.

Let me give you the quotation out of the bill. It says:

No Medicare supplemental policy that provides coverage of

expenses for prescription drugs may be sold, issued, or

renewed under this section to an individual who is enrolled

under Part D.

So you essentially have a choice: Am I going to enroll in this new Part D and get this benefit and therefore forego any Medigap policy or am I going to stay out?

We are telling seniors whose cost burden, on average, will be $2,100 a year, and 10 percent of whom are likely to have out-of-pocket expenses of $4,000 or more per year, they will not be allowed to seek additional prescription drug relief.

The amendment I am offering would give seniors the option of purchasing more prescription coverage as part of a comprehensive Medigap plan. The amendment calls on the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to devise two new Medigap plans that would each offer prescription drug coverage to beneficiaries who elect Part D.

There are currently 10 standard Medigap plans. They are designated A through J, and they offer insurance to seniors. Of those, plans H, I, and J offer prescription drug coverage in addition to Part A and Part B wraparounds. Of these, H and J are the most commonly elected plans.

Under S. 1, the way it now stands, seniors who elect Part D would no longer qualify for H, I, or J. However, if the amendment is adopted, the two new policies designed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners would be similar to the current Medigap policies of H and J, but their prescription drug coverage would be tailored to wrap around the Part D coverage. So seniors who are currently H or J subscribers would have the option of electing Part D and still maintaining a Medigap plan similar to what they have now.

The amendment would give the National Association of Insurance Commissioners 18 months to develop and report back on these two new plans. In my view, it would be a substantial improvement to the current bill.

As I said, my amendment will give the National Association of Insurance Commissioners 18 months to develop and report back on two new plans. The NAIC is the appropriate body to develop these plans because they have a system already in place for doing so with appropriate representation from all interested and affected parties. The NAIC can best determine how the benefits proposed in this amendment can be designed in order to avoid over-utilization and to coordinate with the existing medigap benefit packages. They were the body employed to develop the current Medigap plans A through J and they are the body best equipped to develop these two new plans.

This amendment is similar to language already included in the House version of the bill and thus already has a great deal of support in the House of Representatives.

This amendment also provides a provision to stabilize the Medigap market

during this time of transition. The current bill states that seniors who are enrolled in H, I, or J at the time when they elect Part D will be displaced from their current Medigap plans and given open enrollment into any other Medigap plan A-G offered in their State. Our amendment will still guarantee them the option of enrolling in substitute coverage without the risk of discrimination based on age, health status, utilization, etc. However, our amendment will reduce the chaos of this transition time by keeping the majority of Medigap subscribers with their current carriers.

Let me explain. Beneficiaries displaced from H, I, or J will have the option of choosing any other Medigap plan--A-G--that their carrier offers or one of the two new plans. If their current carrier does not choose to offer one of the new plans then they will have the option of switching carriers in order to obtain a medigap policy that includes prescription coverage. Thus, the majority of seniors will be staying with their current carriers and thus, those carriers will be better able to predict the affect of this shift and better able to ease the transition for their subscribers.

This is a simple amendment that should elicit very little controversy. People may raise concerns because it will be difficult to construct a standardized wrap around benefit to compliment Part D when Part D is not standardized. But this is not a reason to deny people access to supplemental coverage. Rather, we are giving the NAIC 18 months to put together such a plan.

Consumer groups such as the Consumer Union and Medicare Advocacy support our amendment because it provides much needed additional coverage options for our Nation's seniors. Likewise, insurance carriers like it because it allows them to continue to provide a service that they have been providing up until this point and yet it does not force them to offer these new plans if they do not see them as viable. The cost of the amendment should be negligible as it is not adding any additional Government expenditure nor expediting a beneficiary's trip to the catastrophic threshold. This amendment simply gives seniors an opportunity to continue to seek the insurance industry an opportunity to meet the needs of our seniors not met by Medicare Part D.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to review this amendment before they vote. I think it is an excellent amendment.

I ask them to join me in supporting it.

Mr. President, the bill before us has, in my view, a significant flaw in it. We are holding out this prescription drug benefit. But the bill we are considering here says if you want to take advantage of the benefit, you are thereby prohibited from buying any supplemental insurance to cover prescription drugs. Today, people are able to buy Medigap policies that cover prescription drugs. In the future they will not be able to, if this bill becomes law as it is.

My amendment would merely give people the option of buying a prescription drug supplemental policy if they chose to do so. It directs that two policies be developed that would accomplish that.

It is supported by the insurance industry. It is supported by the Consumers Union. Seniors would like to have this opportunity to reduce their risk of substantial out-of-pocket costs.

We ought to provide this benefit.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 972 on Medicare community health center payments.

I ask unanimous consent to revise the list of sponsors of the amendment to read: Senators Snowe, Bingaman, Smith, Hollings, and Hatch.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member for agreeing to this very important amendment related to our Nation's community health centers. I also thank Senator Snowe, with whom all who are now cosponsoring this amendment introduced S. 654, the Medicare Safety Net Access Act of 2003. Her leadership on the Nation's community health centers has been unwavering and has made it possible to get to the point where we can adopt this amendment.

I also thank Senator Smith, Senator Hollings, Senator Hatch, and Senator Conrad for their longstanding advocacy support for community health centers. Senator Smith and Senator Hollings need to be thanked for their constant advocacy and push to see this amendment pass.

In addition, it should be noted that Senators Hatch and Conrad spearheaded a very similar effort to protect community health centers in the Medicaid Program back in 1997.

As we proceed with the passage of S. 1, we need to be careful not to create potential unintended consequences as a result of our actions. This amendment corrects an important unintended consequence that this legislation could have had on our Nation's community health centers. Community health centers have broad bipartisan support. The President and the Congress have committed to doubling the funding for community health centers over a 5-year period. The health centers provide care for over 13 million people annually. Nearly one million of those are low-income Medicare beneficiaries. They receive section 330 Federal Public Health Service Act grant funds to support care for the uninsured and for low-income patients. To ensure those grant funds are used entirely for that purpose, Congress has specifically taken action to ensure that both Medicare and Medicaid are fully reimbursing health centers for the costs associated with the care provided for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.

Simply put, the funding intended for low-income and uninsured people should not be diverted and instead used to subsidize Medicare underpayments. Therefore, health centers are reimbursed by Medicare under a cost-base system. This amendment would simply extend the same requirement to the new Medicare Advantage programs by ensuring that community health centers are provided with a wraparound or supplemental payment equal to the difference between the payments they now receive under Medicare generally and the payment they would receive from Medicare Advantage plans. This is not a new concept.

In 1997, Congress allowed States to dramatically increase the number of patients who were enrolled in Medicaid managed care. We recognized the potential adverse impact on community health centers, and to deal with that we required the Medicaid Program to provide a wraparound or supplemental payment for the difference between the managed care organizations payment and a health centers reasonable cost. Again, Senators Hatch and Conrad were instrumental in that effort.

With this important amendment we are proposing today we would do the same in the Medicare Program. According to testimony Tom Scully gave at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and testimony that the Congressional Budget Office gave on the 13th of June, their estimates for how many Medicare beneficiaries actually were enrolled in the private health plans ranged all over the board. It went from 9 percent in one estimate, the CBO estimate, to 43 percent, the estimate that Tom Scully's actuaries developed. It was a fivefold difference in those estimates.

In the words of Dr. Holtz-Eakin, the head of the CBO, these are honest differences in trying to read a very uncertain future.

We do have clearly ahead of us a very uncertain future as to how many people will choose to leave traditional Medicare and move into the private plans. Mr. Scully is correct that health centers will lose their guarantee of cost-base reimbursement to 43 percent of their Medicare patients. Potentially, this could result in centers having to dip into their Federal grant fund money intended to provide care to the uninsured, and they would have to dip into those Federal grant funds in order to make up for losses they were incurring trying to provide services to Medicare patients.

Our Nation's safety net is already fragile. We need to take this action to ensure we are not jeopardizing it through the passage of this legislation.

Again, both the President and Congress have committed to double the capacity of our Nation's health centers to deal with the growing number of uninsured in this country. In light of this, the amendment we are offering today would protect the vital role that health centers play. It would ensure that health centers are not forced to decide either between subsidizing the Medicare Program with their grant dollars or refusing to provide services to some of the 1 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries that currently depend upon them for services.

I thank the chairman and ranking member for agreeing to accept this amendment. I thank all the chief sponsors, Senator Snowe, and all cosponsors for their hard work. I believe it is a very important amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island very much for yielding to me.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, just very briefly, let me state that this is the revised version of the amendment Senator Domenici and I had 2 days ago that would have eliminated the assets test. This keeps the assets test but reforms it very substantially.

I will explain this further when we get an opportunity to actually debate the amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam President, just to indicate what this amendment does, this is an amendment related to Medigap and directs that a Medigap plan be developed to wrap around the prescription drug benefit that is currently in the bill.

Again, I will further explain this amendment and argue for it when we get the opportunity to do so.

I did need to have both of these amendments offered so that the Congressional Budget Office would do a score for them. Again, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for yielding to me for that purpose.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and several of our colleagues in introducing legislation that will allow rural letter carriers to deduct their actual expenses when they use their own vehicle to deliver the mail. This Tax Code correction will reduce the out-of-pocket costs currently incurred by our Nation's rural letter carriers, giving them comparable tax treatment enjoyed by others using their vehicles in their line of business.

For many years, rural letter carriers were allowed to calculate their deductible expenses by using either a special formula or keeping track of their costs. In 1997, Congress simplified the tax treatment for letter carriers, but disallowed them the ability to use the actual expense method--business portion of actual operation and maintenance of the vehicle, plus depreciation--for calculating their costs. Unfortunately, this has resulted in many letter carriers being unable to account for their real expenses when using their own vehicle to deliver the mail. This problem is worse in more rugged parts of our country where road conditions and severe weather can require letter carriers to use an SUV or four-wheel-drive vehicle that are more expensive to maintain. This legislation will ensure that these mail carriers are fully reimbursed for the costs associated with the operation of their vehicles.

Although the Internet has made the world seem smaller, purchased goods must still be delivered. The benefits of Internet purchases in remote locations is limited if the purchased item cannot be delivered. For this reason, in rural States, such as New Mexico, these letter carriers play an important role in delivering the majority of the State's mail and parcels. On a daily basis across the Nation, rural letter carriers drive over 3 million miles delivering mail and parcels to over 30 million families. We need to be sure that we have not created a tax impediment for these dedicated individuals. I look forward to working with the chairman and my colleagues to get this legislation passed this year.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record immediately following the statement of Senator Grassley on the introduction of this legislation.

Mr. President, when I came to the Senate floor a few minutes ago, we were just informed by the Republican staff that CBO estimates the amendment we were planning to vote on would cost $5 billion. This is all brandnew information. It is erroneous information, but I have no way to contradict what CBO is saying.

Therefore, I send an amendment to the desk to modify my amendment to request a study by MedPAC on this issue which would come back to us within a year. At that point, we could make a determination as to whether we want to take the action I had originally been proposing. Let me explain.

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to modify my amendment.

Mr. President, the issue to which this study will give the answer is the question of whether disproportionate share hospitals that are the same net hospitals, that serve many of the individuals who would not have any health insurance, should continue to receive the DSH payments we have legislated they are entitled to, even after this prescription drug legislation becomes law. I strongly believe they should. My amendment was intended to ensure they receive those payments.

I fear the system we are adopting, which will move people into preferred provider organizations, will in fact reduce the payments to these disproportionate share hospitals, which I don't believe is the purpose or the intention of the Senate. That is the issue.

I urge my colleagues to support the study to give an answer as to whether that problem exists.

Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague from Oregon for his leadership on this important issue. We have all worked on a bipartisan basis with the administration to increase our support for community health centers. We have all begun to recognize the very vital role they play in providing health care to many of our citizens throughout the country.

This amendment is absolutely crucial if we are going to ensure that the unintended effect of the legislation before us is not to drain funds away from community health centers as more and more people decide they want to sign up for these preferred provider organizations.

This is crucial legislation. It is very important we do this in the case of the Medicare prescription drug area, just as we did in the case of Medicaid.

I again compliment my colleague and I am honored to be a cosponsor of this amendment.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment deals with the issue of safety net hospitals. That is a label we have put on what are, in fact, called in the law Medicare disproportionate share hospitals, or DSH. The payments we make for DSH are intended to support these safety net hospitals. By adopting my amendment, we ensure we are not unintentionally reducing the payments to these safety net hospitals.

By ``safety net hospitals,'' in general terms, we are talking about hospitals that provide medical services to a great many individuals who do not have health care coverage. That is where the phrase ``disproportionate share'' comes from, saying they have a disproportionate share of the uninsured coming to their hospitals seeking medical treatment. We have set up a system through Medicare and also a separate system through Medicaid to provide additional funds to those safety net hospitals.

Since DSH payments are made as add-on adjustments to fee-for-service

reimbursements, those payments to hospitals are reduced as Medicare beneficiaries choose to enroll in private health plans and the money is instead logically wrapped into payments by the Federal Government to the private health plans.

We had some testimony before the Finance Committee. Tom Skully testified that he estimates enrollment in private health plans will increase from 10 percent, where it is today, up to 43 percent by the year 2008. Tom Skully, of course, is in charge of administering these programs. His opinion is extremely important in this debate.

If he is right, that would result in an average reduction in the Medicare DSH payments--that is, the payments to the safety net hospitals--of about 37 percent. Clearly, this is not the intent of Congress in this legislation. We are not setting out in this legislation, which is intended to provide a prescription drug benefit to seniors, to intentionally reduce the payments to safety net hospitals. The bill itself, in fact, increases DSH payments to rural safety net hospitals. That is a provision Chairman Grassley and the ranking member, Senator Baucus, and I very strongly support.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, which advises the Congress on Medicare policy, has said in their report ``plans are overpaid''-- private plans, they are talking about--``to the extent they do not pass on DSH payments to the appropriate hospitals.''

Congress recognized this program in the past and intentionally carved out graduate medical education, or GME, payments from health plans and made provisions so those payments would go directly to the teaching hospitals. That policy is included in S. 1, but unfortunately the disproportionate share payments were not addressed in the underlying bill.

Also, in the case of Medicaid, Congress required a carve-out of DSH payments under Medicaid to health plans in 1997 when Congress authorized the substantially greater use of managed care in the Medicaid Program. The intent was clear, that Congress did not want to unintentionally harm the safety net hospitals as they had more people move into Medicaid managed care.

We are essentially trying to do the very same thing here. The same recognition and the same policy should apply in the case of Medicare DSH payments that we applied in the case of Medicaid DSH payments.

Our Nation's important public hospitals lost an estimated $527 million in treating Medicare patients in the year 2001. That was with 88 percent of those public hospitals reporting losses on Medicare. They cannot afford additional Medicare cuts. That would be exactly what we would be enacting if we passed the underlying bill without including the amendment I provide here. Now is the time to protect and carve out the amendments intended to go to safety net hospitals to ensure they actually do go to the safety net hospitals even once this program is put in place.

I hope very much my colleagues will support this amendment. I hope it can be adopted and included in the legislation before it passes the Senate.

Amendment No. 972

Mr. President, I have another amendment numbered 972, and I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

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

As we proceed with this consideration of S. 1--and I believe firmly that it will be passed through the Senate this week--we need to be very careful not to create unintended consequences as a result of our legislation.

The previous amendment I discussed tries to head off some unintended and certainly undesirable consequences for safety net hospitals. This amendment tries to do the very same thing with regard to community health centers. Let me explain what this amendment does.

First, I am concerned about the implications that passing this underlying legislation as it now is pending in the Senate could have on the Nation's community health centers. Community health centers have enjoyed broad bipartisan support in Congress. They have enjoyed strong support from the President. The President and the Congress have committed to doubling the funding for community health centers over a 5-year period. That is an encouraging development. Health centers provide care to over 13 million people annually, nearly 1 million of whom are low-income Medicare beneficiaries. They receive section 330 Federal Public Health Service Act grant funds to support care for the uninsured and for low-income patients.

To ensure that those grant dollars are spent for the purposes intended, Congress has specifically taken action to ensure that both Medicare and Medicaid are fully reimbursing the health centers for the costs associated with the care those health centers provide to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.

Simply put, funding intended for low-income and uninsured people should not be diverted and used to subsidize Medicare underpayments. Therefore, health centers are reimbursed by Medicare under a cost-based system.

The amendment I am offering, amendment No. 972, would simply extend this same requirement to the new Medicare Advantage Programs by ensuring that community health centers are provided with a wraparound, or a supplemental payment equal to the difference between the payments they now receive under Medicare generally and the payments they would receive from Medicare Advantage plans.

This concept is not new. In 1997, when Congress allowed States to dramatically increase the number of patients enrolled in Medicaid managed care, we recognized the potential impact on community health centers, and we required the Medicaid Program to provide this wraparound, or supplemental payment, for the difference between the managed care organization's payment and the health center's reasonable cost. We need to do the same thing here, with my amendment, in the Medicare Program.

According to testimony, again, from Tom Scully, which I referred to just a minute ago, the hearing we had in the Finance Committee indicated there are widely differing estimates for how many Medicare beneficiaries would actually enroll in private health plans. Those estimates range from 9 percent to 43 percent, a fivefold difference.

Dr. Holtz-Eakin's words were that:

These are honest differences in trying to read a very

uncertain future.

All of us want to reduce that uncertainty. If Mr. Scully is correct, then health centers will lose their guarantee of cost-based reimbursement to 43 percent of their Medicare patients, and that potentially will result in centers having to dip into their Federal grant funds, which is money that was intended to provide care to the uninsured to make up for losses to their Medicare patients.

The Nation's safety net is already a fragile one. We should take this action. We should adopt this amendment to ensure we are not jeopardizing that safety net even further by passing the underlying legislation without the amendment.

Again, this Congress and the President have made a commitment to these community health centers to deal with the growing number of uninsured in the country. In light of this, the amendment is, in my view, vital to the health of these health centers and ensuring the health centers are not forced to decide whether to subsidize the Medicare Program with their grant dollars or refuse to provide services to the 1 million Medicare beneficiaries to whom they currently provide those services.

Just as I indicated with the previous amendment, I think this will substantially improve the bill. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I hope, when we come to consideration of it and a vote on it, that the Senate will endorse this amendment. It will avoid a consequence that I know is not intended by any of my colleagues here in the Senate.

I ask this amendment I have just been discussing, amendment No. 972, be set aside so I may off another amendment.

Mr. President, I ask amendment No. 973 be called up for immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment deals with Indian Medicare Part B services. The Indian Health Service, of course, operates hospitals and clinics in various parts of the country, several in my State. Those hospitals and clinics provide health care to American Indians on or near reservations and to Alaska Natives. In many cases, those are hospitals and clinics that currently are unable to bill for all of the Medicare Part B services they are providing. In effect, the Indian Health Service under current law is subsidizing the Medicare Program because those services which would otherwise be paid for by Medicare, if it were a different provider other than the Indian Health Service--are having to be paid by the Indian Health Service itself.

I think we in the Senate are all aware that the Indian Health Service, year after year, has been substantially underfunded. In 2000, Indian Health Service hospitals and clinics were made eligible for services of physicians and certain other practitioners, but there were real limits put on the services that were provided. Specifically, they were denied payment, the Indian Health Service hospitals and clinics were denied payment for the following important items that I will call to the attention of my colleagues so they may realize what the Indian Health Service is not permitted to be reimbursed for in the current law: Durable medical equipment. This includes such items as wheelchairs, as well as blood testing strips, blood monitors for diabetes patients--which is a severe problem among Native Americans throughout this country.

The second item is home and some institution dialysis supplies and equipment. Since the prevalence of diabetes in the Native-American population and among Alaska Natives is three times the rate in the general U.S. population, Indian people experience a high rate of renal disease, including end-state renal disease. Clearly these are expenses, these are supplies, this is equipment that should be reimbursed.

Third, cancer screening.

Next, Pap smears, glaucoma screening, clinic and hospital-based ambulance services, prosthetic devices, covered vaccines, including hepatitis B, pneumococcal and influenza, chemotherapy and antigen drugs, and clinical laboratory services.

The amendment I am offering would simply make these Indian health facilities and providers eligible for payment for all of the Part B Medicare-covered items, and individuals, to the same extent other providers are eligible for payment for those supplies and services.

The amendment assures that Native Americans would have the same access to health services as any other American. If the Indian Health Service providers are unable to bill for those services, as they currently are, then the Indian Health Service budget shortfalls

wind up resulting in the rationing or delaying of treatment to many of our Native-American citizens. For some of these individuals, it means going out of the Indian Health Service system in order to get more prompt service because other providers, in fact, do get reimbursed and can get reimbursed on Medicare for providing those services.

Native Americans and Indian Health Service providers should not be subject to such barriers to care and to payment. Similarly, they should not be subject to such complexity as they are only prohibited from billing and receiving payment for certain services and not for others.

It needs to be noted that the Medicare Advantage payments are based in part on fee-for-service expenditures in the defined region. For those areas with large numbers of Native Americans--such as my State-- payment rates are skewed downward if the Indian Health Service providers are unable to bill appropriately for the full range of services. We have lower reimbursement rates for Medicare in my State than many of the surrounding areas. One of the factors--not the only one, but one of the factors that is causing that is this problem I am trying to address with the amendment, the problem that the Indian Health Service is unable to be reimbursed. Accordingly, the amount Medicare is paying is skewed downward. Accordingly, that affects Medicare payments throughout the region.

There is absolutely no policy rationale for limiting the payment to the Indian Health Service hospitals and clinics for only certain of the Medicare Part B services.

I urge the Senate to end this unfortunate discrimination that has been built into the statutes under which we currently operate.

I hope, again, this amendment will be favorably acted upon by the Senate when it comes to a vote. I believe it will substantially improve the legislation and will correct an inequity that is in current law that needs to be corrected.

Amendment No. 933

Mr. President, let me at this point move to another amendment. We do not need to move off the current amendment, but I wish to discuss a different amendment that is pending that I am not calling up for a vote at this time but one I offered sometime earlier.

The amendment I wish to speak about briefly now relates to the assets test. It is a proposal I have made to repeal the assets test.

First, I compliment Chairman Grassley and the ranking member, Senator Baucus, for making significant progress and improvement with respect to the low-income benefit as compared to similar legislation that was considered last year. The bill, although improving the low-income benefit and reducing the impact of the assets test, still leaves in place an assets test of just $4,000 for an individual and $6,000 for a couple.

This assets test has two very important consequences. By explaining these consequences, I think I will be able to explain what I mean by an ``assets test.''

First of all, for those who have incomes below the poverty level, if you own as much as $4,100 in a whole range of different assets combined--it can be savings accounts, bonds, savings bonds, burial plots, insurance policies, a car, the net worth of your car, livestock, whatever you happen to own--if the combined value of these categories adds up to $4,100, then your cost sharing under the bill increases and you do not get the full benefit of this low-income prescription drug benefit we are talking about as part of this legislation.

Your cost sharing under the bill increases by 400 percent if you fail this assets test compared to similarly situated low-income people. If your income is between 100 and 135 percent of poverty, then the assets test increases cost sharing by 200 percent; that is, you have to pay twice as much if, in fact, your total assets add up to more than $4,100.

The result is, Congress has effectively established a policy that encourages low-income seniors or people with disabilities to further impoverish themselves--that is, dispose of their property, sell their property off--in order to get the full benefit that is advertised.

What kind of sense does this really make, to ask low-income and vulnerable seniors and people with disabilities to get rid of the very minimal savings they have in order to get the full low-income benefit?

Let me talk about the other aspect of this that I think is particularly significant and needs to be discussed here. I think more and more, as people have been reading this legislation--this legislation goes on for more than 600 pages, so anyone who thinks we are doing something simple here by just giving people a prescription drug benefit has not spent the time to try to understand this legislation and read it.

One of the aspects of the assets test that is most troublesome is the enormously cumbersome and bureaucratic procedure we put in place that affects so many of our low-income seniors who want to benefit from this prescription drug benefit we are adding. Also, there is a very substantial invasion of people's lives involved. Let me explain that in a little more detail.

Any of you who do not think this is a complex, cumbersome, bureaucratic process we are setting up for low-income seniors, I urge you to just read the Pennsylvania 16-page application for low-income Medicare beneficiaries who want to qualify for assistance with premiums and copayments and deductibles that will also be the basis for qualifying for the low-income benefit in this bill. I question whether many of us in Congress would be able to fill out that application.

What I have on this easel is not the Pennsylvania 16-page application. This is a much shorter, so-called streamlined 4-page application from the State of Ohio.

To comply with the assets test requirement, as shown on this chart, in the State of Ohio they ask you to detail in this form all that you own in an enormous number of categories. Let me just go through this: your savings accounts, your checking accounts, anything you have with a credit union, any promissory notes, any stocks and bonds, any tax shelter accounts, any certificates of deposit, automobiles, 401(k)s, trust funds, Christmas clubs, vehicles of any kind other than an automobile--if you happen to have a pickup--money market funds, life insurance, land contracts, IRAs, Keogh plans, revocable burial accounts, irrevocable burial accounts, and other assets.

So if you own a cow or you own a horse, whatever you own, they want to know about it. Then they add up the total value of those assets to see whether you have $4,100 there. If you do have $4,100 there, you have just failed the assets test.

There are some 20 items here for low-income seniors or disabled Medicare beneficiaries to report just to apply for the prescription drug low-income benefit. It is a test, as I indicated, which many of us in Congress would have trouble passing without the assistance of a lawyer or an accountant. It is a major barrier, it is a burden we are imposing on these very individuals whom we say we are trying to help.

I bring this to the attention of the Senate because I do not think many of us know the extent to which these applications are both difficult--difficult to complete--and also a terrible invasion of privacy.

The Georgia application reads--and let me put that provision on the easel. We have a blowup of the application, which I am sure very few can read. But just to make the point, we have tried to blow it up so people can see it. I will read from the Georgia application. It says:

I understand that, by signing this application, I am

agreeing to a full investigation or review of my eligibility

by state and/or federal officials. This may include inquiries

of employers, medical providers, financial institutions, and

other business and professional persons and review of any

agency records.

Oklahoma's application goes even further. It reads:

I authorize the release of any necessary information,

documents, or forms to the [Oklahoma department] from

individuals, businesses, schools, banking institutions, data

brokers, public or private organizations, Oklahoma state

agencies, including personal and/or business income tax

returns from the Oklahoma Tax Commission, or federal agencies

to determine my eligibility for assistance or to determine

the accuracy of any payments to vendors on my behalf.

The Pennsylvania application--unfortunately, I do not have that blown up here; it would take more easels than we have available--requires the applicant to consent to:

. . . fully cooperate in the finger, photo, and signature

imaging process.

It requires the reporting of any changes in the number of people in the household, any changes in the resources of the individual, and it adds--and this is a quotation from the report; this is the Pennsylvania report--``you must report any plans to leave the state, even temporarily.'' So if you want to come from Pennsylvania down to Washington, DC, to see your Senator, you have to notify the folks in Pennsylvania that you are leaving the State if you are, in fact, eligible for this benefit.

The burden of the application ought to be something that would scare off a lot of individuals. Here is a line that is in the application of many States:

State and Federal law provides for fine, for imprisonment,

or both for any person who withholds or gives false

information--

I note that it does not include anything about intentionally giving false information.

in order to obtain assistance to which he or she is entitled.

The application from Georgia reads:

I understand the questions on this application--

which I would attest is virtually impossible for a lot of folks unless they do get professional help in understanding all of this--

and I certify under penalty of perjury that the information

given by me on this form is correct and complete to the best

of my knowledge.

The result of this assets test, this barrage of paperwork presented to people when they come in and ask for the benefits, is what the Congressional Budget Office is telling us. Their estimate is that only 50 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who are eligible for the low- income benefit under this bill will actually get the benefit. I find it shocking, after reading these applications, that the number could even be that high. It is a testament to the Nation's seniors and disabled that so many people go through the bureaucratic maze to get the benefit we are talking about.

On the implementation of the Children's Health Insurance Program--a different program but one that also had a similar assets test--a number of States initially imposed assets tests on the families before they allowed children to get health care coverage. Over time most of those States have repealed those tests.

Our experience with the assets test in the case of the Children's Health Insurance Program should be instructive. The Denver Post wrote at the time:

It seems the system is penalizing people for trying to

build better lives. The message is that you must stay poor.

If you have a decent running car that will get you to where

you need to go, you will lose your health care coverage.

The Rocky Mountain News added:

Jumping through the hoops might be a whole lot easier for

some families than filling out the required forms which rival

the renowned handiwork of the Internal Revenue Service for

clarity and ease of compliance. The logic of erecting such

paperwork obstacles escapes us. Government doesn't have to

offer insurance to the children of working poor but having

made the decision to do so, it is hardly fair then to smother

the program beneath layers of red tape.

These last two quotes relate to the Children's Health Insurance Program, not to the Medicare prescription drug benefit. But the same problem pointed out when we had the assets test applied in the case of the Children's Health Insurance Program is true and exists with respect to this prescription drug coverage for our Nation's low-income elderly and disabled citizens. We are not only smothering them beneath layers of red tape, but the applications threaten their privacy and further threaten fines or imprisonment if those individuals who apply provide false information even if it is unintentional in some cases.

I raise these points because very few, if any, Senators have taken the time to understand the application process, and they would be appalled if they really did take the time to understand the difficulties we are placing in the way of a senior getting access to this low-income benefit. I urge each of them to attempt to fill out their own State's application. Clearly that would be a good way to acquaint themselves with the difficulty of the problem we are putting in the way of people.

Before closing, let me point out the assets test was established in 1988. It has never been updated for inflation. Nor does the bill update the assets test for inflation.

Not only was the assets test established in 1988 at this level of $4,000 and $6,000 per couple, and it has never been updated for inflation, but it has built in it a marriage penalty. If you get married, a couple can only have a combined net worth of $6,000. If you remain single, you can have a net worth of $4,000. Everyone who gives speeches about the importance of eliminating the marriage penalty will want to support the amendment for that reason.

The bill does update the amount of the deductible. The amount of the deductible increases. It does update the catastrophic limit by an inflation factor pegged to increases in drug spending which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will increase on average 12 percent a year over the next 10 years. But we do nothing to index or update the amount of this assets test.

While I completely respect the position of the chairman that he would place a priority on using any additional funds to close the coverage gap in the bill--I certainly favor closing that coverage gap myself--we need to protect our Nation's most vulnerable, the poorest and the sickest among us first. If we provide a low-income benefit, as the bill does, it should be unacceptable to us to have only half of those who are eligible for that benefit actually access the benefit. This is similar to the Children's Health Insurance Program in that we are not required to provide this benefit, but now that we are choosing to do so and we are choosing to do so on a bipartisan basis, we need to be sure those who are intended to benefit from it can in fact do so. We are about to impose on these individuals an avalanche of bureaucratic red tape when they try to access the benefit.

The underlying legislation has contained in it 69 pages of language that is designed to give health care providers a whole range of regulatory relief. Here we have some of that detail on this chart. The appeals process is being reformed--expedited review procedures, provider ombudsman, a variety of things to try to help providers. But we have nothing to give beneficiaries any relief from the burden I have described.

One Senator said last week that the amendment I have offered to eliminate the assets test would cost money. It would increase State administrative costs. Frankly, that statement could not be more inaccurate. In fact, if we dramatically reduce the paperwork burden, the bureaucratic paperwork, States would not have to increase administrative costs. They would actually be able to reduce those costs. It is not the amendment that is increasing these costs. It is the underlying bill. It is not the amendment that is imposing the burden upon States. It is the underlying bill itself.

All the amendment does is significantly reduce the amount of bureaucratic paperwork that must be dealt with in order for this benefit to be provided. Some States have actually found that it costs more to administer the assets test than they save by disqualifying people who fail the test.

In addition, Senator Hatch's comments on the amendment were right in saying it would increase costs. But the estimate is that it would increase costs by $4 billion over the 10-year period for which the Congressional Budget Office calculates.

This is well within the budget limitations Congress established for this drug benefit. There are $19.3 billion remaining in the budget for fiscal years 2009 through 2013. My amendment provides those are the years that this assets test would be eliminated.

The amendment also does so by eliminating the false advertising we are engaged in as we tout a low-income benefit when, in fact, only 50 percent of eligible beneficiaries are going to receive it. In fact, CBO estimates that another 1 million low-income seniors who are eligible for this low-income benefit will in fact be able to access it if this amendment is adopted.

If we eliminate the bureaucratic redtape, who are the 1 million people who would benefit from this assets test? The Commonwealth Fund has studied that. They have said in a recent report:

Compared to other Medicare beneficiaries, low-income

Medicare beneficiaries are older,

they are more likely to be women, they are more likely to be

single, and more than twice as likely to be widowed or

divorced or separated. Low-income Medicare beneficiaries are

almost twice as likely to report that their health is either

fair or poor.

I think it is these people who need to be our first priority. The amendment I have to eliminate the assets test will help us to provide a genuine benefit to these people. I hope my colleagues will support this effort. It will substantially improve the underlying bill and substantially simplify the providing of this benefit we are all hoping occurs.

I yield the floor.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. And I thank the Senator from Montana.

First, Mr. President, I understand there is an intent to try to table this amendment at this point. Obviously, I would object to that. And I believe there are others who want to speak. I would like to try to accommodate any real concerns the majority has. So at this point, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to withdraw the amendment until it can be perfected in a way the majority would support.

Mr. President, do I still have any time?

Mr. President, I ask for 30 seconds to explain my vote.

Mr. President, I am going to go ahead and vote with the manager of the bill to table my own amendment now in order that we can bring this back here tomorrow. I will plan to reoffer the amendment, and hope that if there are real problems with it, those can be brought to my attention before we reoffer the amendment tomorrow. It is a very important issue. It is one we need to deal with in a responsible way. I urge all colleagues to go ahead and vote to table at this time.

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

Mr. President, I renew my request that I be allowed to withdraw the amendment that I have related to the assets test at this time and reoffer it tomorrow after I have had a chance to consult with more of my colleagues.

I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Domenici as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. President, today I am introducing comprehensive legislation to expedite forest thinning and improve forest health on our national forests and public lands. I am pleased that Senator Daschle is a cosponsor of this bill.

Everyone in the Senate wants to do what we can to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire. We all agree on the need to accelerate fuels reduction activities because the risk of severe fire is so high. Ongoing drought, past fire suppression policies, and overly-excessive harvesting of timber have all contributed to the problem. All of us also agree that it is much better to devote limited resources to proactive efforts to reduce fire risk rather than paying to fight fires once they occur.

I have tried for years to improve the Federal agencies' forest thinning program in a variety of ways. I am also a vocal proponent for spending Federal dollars conducting proactive forest restoration. Although some may contend that restoration costs too much money, over the long-term, it is much less expensive than fighting fires.

Every year, the Forest Service borrows funds from other accounts to pay for firefighting. It is clear that this practice substantially contributes to project delays and cancellations. For example, in 2002 alone, the Forest Service states that:

some critical projects in New Mexico were postponed for up to

one year as a result of fire borrowing. These include

wildland-urban interface fuels projects on the Carson, Gila,

Lincoln, and Santa Fe National Forests. A contract for

construction of a fuelbreak around a community at risk on the

Cibola National Forest was postponed for six months.

The legislation I am introducing today eliminates the current fire borrowing practice by authorizing the Forest Service, during years in which the agencies' firefighting costs exceed its budget, to borrow funds directly from the Treasury. I urge my colleagues to reject any bill purporting to decrease on the ground delays if it does not address this problem.

A 2002 report by the National Academy of Public Administration, and a letter to Congress from the Society of American Foresters dated November 2002, confirms that the main obstacle constraining us from increasing our efforts to reduce fire risk is a lack of adequate funding. Clearly, the Forest Service's fire borrowing practice contributes to this lack of funding. Ever since Congress first funded the National Fire Plan more than two years ago, I have continually emphasized the need to sustain a commitment to the FY 2001 funding levels over a long enough period of time to make a difference--at least 15 years.

Important programs that are part of the National Fire Plan, including economic action programs, community and private land fire assistance, and burned area restoration and rehabilitation have been drastically cut--and some have been zeroed out--by the Administration over the last three budget cycles. For some accounts included under the National Fire Plan, but not all, Congress has made up the difference. However, it would certainly be much easier to fully fund the National Fire Plan with the Administration's support.

Beyond funding constraints, some allege that administrative appeals and lawsuits limit our ability to reduce fire risk across the country. As set forth in my legislation, I am willing to provide new legal authorities and exemptions from administrative appeals to address this concern.

Let me briefly describe the expedited procedures provisions of our bill. We propose to exempt from National Environmental Policy Act analysis all forest thinning projects located near communities or in municipal watersheds that remove up to 250,000 board feet of timber or one million board feet of salvage timber. We prohibit administrative appeals on these projects, thereby saving 135 days in the process. In addition, we eliminate judicial review granted under NEPA for thinning projects within one-half mile of at risk communities or within certain municipal watersheds. The combination of these provisions would save between one and one-half to three and one-half years of process.

Targeting the expedited procedures to areas near communities and in municipal watersheds is consistent with a 2002 National Academy of Public Administration report recommending that the Federal Government conduct fuels reduction treatments near communities and municipal watersheds before treating more distant areas. We also require that seventy percent of forest thinning funds be spent within these critical areas.

We agree with, and included, some provisions similar to ones found in H.R. 1904. For example, our bill covers the same amount of Federal land, namely, up to 20 million acres. H.R. 1904 requires the Secretaries to select projects through a collaborative process and give priority to protecting communities and municipal watersheds. Moreover, H.R. 1904 requires that projects be consistent with applicable forest and resource management plans. I agree with all of these provisions.

Both bills establish systematic programs, in cooperation with colleges and universities, to gather information on insect infestations that can be applied to forest management treatments. However, our bill provides actual funds, $25 million annually, to implement the program whereas H.R. 1904 does not.

This bill differs from H.R. 1904 in some other important aspects. Our bill comprehensively addresses the issue of on the ground delay by doing away with the Forest Service's fire borrowing practice and exempting the Forest Service from the Competitive Sourcing Initiative.

Our legislation provides $100 million annually to reduce fire risk and restore burned areas on non-Federal lands. Forest Service researchers state that seventy-seven percent of all high risk areas are on non-Federal lands. In addition, the National Academy of Public Administration's 2002 report notes that forty-seven percent of acres burned each year are non-Federal lands and stated that decreasing fuels on all owners' lands is needed to address the large scope of the fire hazard problem. Moreover, given that the Administration has zeroed out funding for burned area restoration and rehabilitation, the secure funding provided by our bill is desperately needed to protect communities from landslides and other adverse effects of catastrophic wildfire.

The bill I am introducing today recognizes the role that forest dependent

communities play in restoring our lands by requiring that at least thirty percent of hazardous fuels reduction funds be spent on projects that benefit small businesses that use hazardous fuels and are located in small, economically disadvantaged communities. In order to provide robust monitoring of new authorities, we require that an independent commission report to Congress on the results of the program and that the agencies establish a multiparty monitoring program. H.R. 1904 does not contain similar provisions.

Most fuel reduction projects will take several years to implement. It is critical that the agencies have reliable funding to complete the projects they start. If funding is obtained to thin trees the first year, but not to complete the slash disposal and reintroduce fire through prescribed burning the following years, short-term fire risk will be increased. Moreover, slash that is left on the ground increases the likelihood of beetle infestations. The bill I am introducing today ensures that agencies address long-term fuels management whereas H.R. 1904 does not contain any similar provision.

At this point in time, I do not believe we need to expedite judicial review beyond what we offer in this bill. The judicial review limitations in H.R. 1904 are excessive. In May 2003, GAO completed an analysis of Forest Service decisions involving fuel reduction activities. In the first two years of activity under the National Fire Plan, GAO found that only three percent of all of the decisions were litigated covering 100,000 acres. Decisions affecting the remaining 4.6 million acres treated in those two years proceeded without any litigation.

H.R. 1904 provides new legal authorities and judicial review limitations without regard to many independent analyses that have discovered numerous flaws with the agencies' existing implementation of the National Fire Plan. In November 2001, the Inspector General for the Department of Agriculture found that the Forest Service was inappropriately spending its burned area restoration funds to prepare commercial timber sales. Similarly, it was recently discovered that the Forest Service ``misplaced'' $215 million intended for wildland fire management due to an accounting error.

Finally, another GAO report concluded that, because the Forest Service relies on the timber program for funding many of its other activities, including reducing fuels, it has often used the timber program to address the wildfire problem. GAO states, ``The difficulty with such an approach, however, is that the lands with commercially valuable timber are often not those with the greatest wildfire hazards. Additionally, there are problems with the incentives in the fuel reduction program. Currently, managers are rewarded for the number of acres on which they reduce fuels, not for reducing fuels on the lands with the highest fire hazards. Because reducing fuels in areas with greater hazards is often more expensive--meaning that fewer acres can be completed with the same funding level--managers have an incentive not to undertake efforts on such lands.'' GAO/RCED-99-65.

The parameters set forth in our bill will ensure that the agencies conduct forest thinning in a way that truly reduces the threat of fire and improves forest health. For example, we require the agencies to focus on thinning projects that remove small diameter trees. Too often, the Forest Service has cut large trees because of their commercial value instead of removing small-diameter trees that tend to spread fire. A group of respected forest fire scientists recently wrote President Bush a letter stating that, ``thinning of overstory trees, like building new roads, can often exacerbate the situation and damage forest health.''

Our bill prohibits new road construction in roadless areas whereas H.R. 1904 contains no similar provision. The National Forests already contain 380,000 miles of road, as a comparison, the National Highway System contains 160,000 miles of roads, and the deferred maintenance needs on these existing roads totals more than $1 billion. Forest Service analysis reveals that roads increase the probability of accidental and intentional human-caused ignitions.

Returning receipts to the Treasury is consistent with a provision in Senator Wyden and Senator Craig's county payments legislation enacted two years ago and avoids existing perverse incentives. Numerous GAO reports reveal that existing agency trust funds provide incentives for the agency to cut large trees because it gets to keep the revenue. Cutting large trees will not reduce fire risk, therefore, we should direct receipts back to the Treasury. Jeremy Fried, a Forest Service Research specialist at the Pacific Northwest Research Station, states, ``If you take just big trees, you don't reduce fire danger.''

The provision in our bill stating that seventy percent of hazardous fuels reduction funds be spent within one-half mile of at risk communities or within municipal watersheds is necessary because GAO recently found that more than two-thirds of the Forest Service's decisions involving fuels reduction activities were targeted exclusively at lands outside of the wildland/urban interface. H.R. 1904 contains no similar provision.

In conclusion, our bill represents a comprehensive and balanced approach to expedite forest thinning and improve forest health. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing comprehensive legislation to expedite forest thinning and improve forest health on our national forests and public lands. I am pleased that Senator Daschle is a cosponsor of this bill.

Everyone in the Senate wants to do what we can to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire. We all agree on the need to accelerate fuels reduction activities because the risk of severe fire is so high. Ongoing drought, past fire suppression policies, and overly-excessive harvesting of timber have all contributed to the problem. All of us also agree that it is much better to devote limited resources to proactive efforts to reduce fire risk rather than paying to fight fires once they occur.

I have tried for years to improve the Federal agencies' forest thinning program in a variety of ways. I am also a vocal proponent for spending Federal dollars conducting proactive forest restoration. Although some may contend that restoration costs too much money, over the long-term, it is much less expensive than fighting fires.

Every year, the Forest Service borrows funds from other accounts to pay for firefighting. It is clear that this practice substantially contributes to project delays and cancellations. For example, in 2002 alone, the Forest Service states that:

some critical projects in New Mexico were postponed for up to

one year as a result of fire borrowing. These include

wildland-urban interface fuels projects on the Carson, Gila,

Lincoln, and Santa Fe National Forests. A contract for

construction of a fuelbreak around a community at risk on the

Cibola National Forest was postponed for six months.

The legislation I am introducing today eliminates the current fire borrowing practice by authorizing the Forest Service, during years in which the agencies' firefighting costs exceed its budget, to borrow funds directly from the Treasury. I urge my colleagues to reject any bill purporting to decrease on the ground delays if it does not address this problem.

A 2002 report by the National Academy of Public Administration, and a letter to Congress from the Society of American Foresters dated November 2002, confirms that the main obstacle constraining us from increasing our efforts to reduce fire risk is a lack of adequate funding. Clearly, the Forest Service's fire borrowing practice contributes to this lack of funding. Ever since Congress first funded the National Fire Plan more than two years ago, I have continually emphasized the need to sustain a commitment to the FY 2001 funding levels over a long enough period of time to make a difference--at least 15 years.

Important programs that are part of the National Fire Plan, including economic action programs, community and private land fire assistance, and burned area restoration and rehabilitation have been drastically cut--and some have been zeroed out--by the Administration over the last three budget cycles. For some accounts included under the National Fire Plan, but not all, Congress has made up the difference. However, it would certainly be much easier to fully fund the National Fire Plan with the Administration's support.

Beyond funding constraints, some allege that administrative appeals and lawsuits limit our ability to reduce fire risk across the country. As set forth in my legislation, I am willing to provide new legal authorities and exemptions from administrative appeals to address this concern.

Let me briefly describe the expedited procedures provisions of our bill. We propose to exempt from National Environmental Policy Act analysis all forest thinning projects located near communities or in municipal watersheds that remove up to 250,000 board feet of timber or one million board feet of salvage timber. We prohibit administrative appeals on these projects, thereby saving 135 days in the process. In addition, we eliminate judicial review granted under NEPA for thinning projects within one-half mile of at risk communities or within certain municipal watersheds. The combination of these provisions would save between one and one-half to three and one-half years of process.

Targeting the expedited procedures to areas near communities and in municipal watersheds is consistent with a 2002 National Academy of Public Administration report recommending that the Federal Government conduct fuels reduction treatments near communities and municipal watersheds before treating more distant areas. We also require that seventy percent of forest thinning funds be spent within these critical areas.

We agree with, and included, some provisions similar to ones found in H.R. 1904. For example, our bill covers the same amount of Federal land, namely, up to 20 million acres. H.R. 1904 requires the Secretaries to select projects through a collaborative process and give priority to protecting communities and municipal watersheds. Moreover, H.R. 1904 requires that projects be consistent with applicable forest and resource management plans. I agree with all of these provisions.

Both bills establish systematic programs, in cooperation with colleges and universities, to gather information on insect infestations that can be applied to forest management treatments. However, our bill provides actual funds, $25 million annually, to implement the program whereas H.R. 1904 does not.

This bill differs from H.R. 1904 in some other important aspects. Our bill comprehensively addresses the issue of on the ground delay by doing away with the Forest Service's fire borrowing practice and exempting the Forest Service from the Competitive Sourcing Initiative.

Our legislation provides $100 million annually to reduce fire risk and restore burned areas on non-Federal lands. Forest Service researchers state that seventy-seven percent of all high risk areas are on non-Federal lands. In addition, the National Academy of Public Administration's 2002 report notes that forty-seven percent of acres burned each year are non-Federal lands and stated that decreasing fuels on all owners' lands is needed to address the large scope of the fire hazard problem. Moreover, given that the Administration has zeroed out funding for burned area restoration and rehabilitation, the secure funding provided by our bill is desperately needed to protect communities from landslides and other adverse effects of catastrophic wildfire.

The bill I am introducing today recognizes the role that forest dependent

communities play in restoring our lands by requiring that at least thirty percent of hazardous fuels reduction funds be spent on projects that benefit small businesses that use hazardous fuels and are located in small, economically disadvantaged communities. In order to provide robust monitoring of new authorities, we require that an independent commission report to Congress on the results of the program and that the agencies establish a multiparty monitoring program. H.R. 1904 does not contain similar provisions.

Most fuel reduction projects will take several years to implement. It is critical that the agencies have reliable funding to complete the projects they start. If funding is obtained to thin trees the first year, but not to complete the slash disposal and reintroduce fire through prescribed burning the following years, short-term fire risk will be increased. Moreover, slash that is left on the ground increases the likelihood of beetle infestations. The bill I am introducing today ensures that agencies address long-term fuels management whereas H.R. 1904 does not contain any similar provision.

At this point in time, I do not believe we need to expedite judicial review beyond what we offer in this bill. The judicial review limitations in H.R. 1904 are excessive. In May 2003, GAO completed an analysis of Forest Service decisions involving fuel reduction activities. In the first two years of activity under the National Fire Plan, GAO found that only three percent of all of the decisions were litigated covering 100,000 acres. Decisions affecting the remaining 4.6 million acres treated in those two years proceeded without any litigation.

H.R. 1904 provides new legal authorities and judicial review limitations without regard to many independent analyses that have discovered numerous flaws with the agencies' existing implementation of the National Fire Plan. In November 2001, the Inspector General for the Department of Agriculture found that the Forest Service was inappropriately spending its burned area restoration funds to prepare commercial timber sales. Similarly, it was recently discovered that the Forest Service ``misplaced'' $215 million intended for wildland fire management due to an accounting error.

Finally, another GAO report concluded that, because the Forest Service relies on the timber program for funding many of its other activities, including reducing fuels, it has often used the timber program to address the wildfire problem. GAO states, ``The difficulty with such an approach, however, is that the lands with commercially valuable timber are often not those with the greatest wildfire hazards. Additionally, there are problems with the incentives in the fuel reduction program. Currently, managers are rewarded for the number of acres on which they reduce fuels, not for reducing fuels on the lands with the highest fire hazards. Because reducing fuels in areas with greater hazards is often more expensive--meaning that fewer acres can be completed with the same funding level--managers have an incentive not to undertake efforts on such lands.'' GAO/RCED-99-65.

The parameters set forth in our bill will ensure that the agencies conduct forest thinning in a way that truly reduces the threat of fire and improves forest health. For example, we require the agencies to focus on thinning projects that remove small diameter trees. Too often, the Forest Service has cut large trees because of their commercial value instead of removing small-diameter trees that tend to spread fire. A group of respected forest fire scientists recently wrote President Bush a letter stating that, ``thinning of overstory trees, like building new roads, can often exacerbate the situation and damage forest health.''

Our bill prohibits new road construction in roadless areas whereas H.R. 1904 contains no similar provision. The National Forests already contain 380,000 miles of road, as a comparison, the National Highway System contains 160,000 miles of roads, and the deferred maintenance needs on these existing roads totals more than $1 billion. Forest Service analysis reveals that roads increase the probability of accidental and intentional human-caused ignitions.

Returning receipts to the Treasury is consistent with a provision in Senator Wyden and Senator Craig's county payments legislation enacted two years ago and avoids existing perverse incentives. Numerous GAO reports reveal that existing agency trust funds provide incentives for the agency to cut large trees because it gets to keep the revenue. Cutting large trees will not reduce fire risk, therefore, we should direct receipts back to the Treasury. Jeremy Fried, a Forest Service Research specialist at the Pacific Northwest Research Station, states, ``If you take just big trees, you don't reduce fire danger.''

The provision in our bill stating that seventy percent of hazardous fuels reduction funds be spent within one-half mile of at risk communities or within municipal watersheds is necessary because GAO recently found that more than two-thirds of the Forest Service's decisions involving fuels reduction activities were targeted exclusively at lands outside of the wildland/urban interface. H.R. 1904 contains no similar provision.

In conclusion, our bill represents a comprehensive and balanced approach to expedite forest thinning and improve forest health. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today with Senators Hatch, Baucus, Conrad, Breaux, Snowe, Lincoln and Smith that will provide thousands of our Nations' automobile dealerships with needed additional flexibility to re-invest franchise termination payments so that taxes are not unfairly imposed. This legislation has bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate and was included in the Chairman's modified mark in last year's small business tax bill.

At the end of 2000, GM notified their 2,801 Oldsmobile dealers that they were phasing out the 100 year-old Oldsmobile brand and its complete line-up of vehicles shortly after the dealers had signed a new agreement with a commitment of up to five years on this

product line. With this surprising elimination of the Oldsmobile product line, many family-owned dealerships are facing an increased threat to the viability of other product lines at their dealerships and, in some cases, a complete loss of their business.

GM is in the process of compensating these dealers to minimize the impact, as many of these dealers are facing a significant and previously unforeseeable financial burden, through no fault of their own, in connection with their efforts to continue in the automobile retail business. The legislation we are introducing today seeks to lessen that burden by allowing these dealerships up to two years to re- invest their GM's financial assistance payments in other dealership properties and defer payment of taxes under IRC Section 1031. Under current law, the dealerships would only have 6 months to identify and purchase a similar business or property. This time restriction would make it difficult, if not impossible, for most of these businesses to re-invest these payments because, as is the case with most franchises, there are very few businesses or investments that are similar enough to be considered ``like kind'' and hence qualify for tax deferral. The failure to do so results in the owner paying taxes on the payment, even if they are ultimately re-invested in a business that would have qualified. Since the dealers did not want to forfeit their rights to sell Oldsmobiles, this seems like a particularly harsh result.

In rural States like New Mexico, family-owned businesses supply the majority of jobs and services in the State. This legislation gives these small businesses an opportunity to continue their family-owned businesses and, at the same time, give a boost to the local economy. I look forward to working with my colleagues on advancing this legislation.

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