Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I come to the floor to speak about the pending reauthorization, extension of the PATRIOT Act, the legislation passed in the wake of the September 11 attacks. This debate is fraught with emotion because we were all outraged at what happened on September 11. Everyone in America and around the world shares a desire to address the threat of global terrorism, to give law enforcement appropriate powers to pursue those terrorists. But we want to make sure in doing so we pass legislation that is in keeping with the principles on which our country was founded--principles of individual liberty and freedom.

Ultimately, this debate about renewing, extending the PATRIOT Act is about police powers, the power that the people, through their elected representatives, give to government, give to agents of government. Whether it is at the State, local, or Federal level, we give certain police powers to government to conduct searches. We give the government power to detain individuals. We give the government power to serve subpoenas, to confiscate records. We do it because we think ultimately it is in the public interest to do so. But just as the Framers recognized, we need to provide a balance, to balance these very forceful, very powerful tools with personal freedom, civil liberty.

So as a result, we require the government, or government agents, to show cause before they conduct a search. We set standards for evidence in a courtroom. They need to meet certain standards of evidence to conduct a search, certain standards of evidence to detain an individual or a suspect. And, of course, we have the principle of due process, trial by jury, and the ability to have an appeal heard in a court of law.

Some people may say: We know that. These are fundamental. These are basic to our system of justice. But it is important that we are reminded of these basic principles if we are going to get the reauthorization and the extension of the PATRIOT Act correct.

This is not a new set of issues. These are the very issues contemplated by the Framers. In many respects, these police powers are issues that alarmed the Framers--and I say alarmed because they were so concerned about the powers of Government and the powers of the State that they wrote specific protections into the Constitution. The fourth amendment, protecting from unreasonable search and seizure, specifically addresses the threshold of probable cause, that the Government shall show probable cause before it conducts search and seizure of personal property.

The fifth amendment protects us from self-incrimination. We have all seen enough Perry Mason to understand what it means to invoke one's rights under the fifth amendment. It speaks specifically about due process and the right to an open, fair due process when one is being prosecuted, whether it is for a criminal act or whether we are prosecuting one of these powers of search and seizure, a power of the State to issue a search warrant.

The sixth amendment speaks specifically about a right to a trial and what it means to have one's case heard before a jury or in a court of law. All of these amendments and others, but these three in particular, speak directly to balancing the rights of individuals and the liberty of individuals with the powers of the State.

The Framers were, quite frankly, very distrustful of Government and the power of the Federal Government. I try to be a little less pessimistic in my work in the Senate, but I must be frank with my colleagues in stating that on this issue, on the PATRIOT Act, I have begun this debate more from a position of mistrust and concern about the work that had been done in preparation for this reauthorization and the position taken by the administration. I will speak to that in a moment, but it is important to note that on the Senate side we had bipartisan agreement and on the Senate side

we had terrific leadership by Senator Specter on these issues. He understands this balance probably as well as anyone in the Senate. I do not fault his work as a chairman and certainly not the work of the Senate as a whole, given that we had incorporated a number of protections in our legislation.

The Justice Department began this process well over a year ago, taking the position that we should make all the provisions of the PATRIOT Act permanent and we should not make any changes, we did not need to make any changes. This is legislation that was passed just 6 weeks after September 11. I would not say it was passed in haste, but it was passed during a very difficult and emotional time in our country's history. We had sunsets on 16 provisions in the PATRIOT Act for just that reason. We knew there was a lot of uncertainty as to how this war on terrorism would progress, what tools law enforcement really did need to pursue legitimate terrorist suspects, what we needed to do to get our hands around financial records or other financial transactions that might lead investigators to uncover terrorist cells in America or around the world.

Anyone who understands the legislative process knows that was not a perfect bill, no matter how hard people worked on it. To suggest that when it came time for reauthorization there would be no need for changes I believe suggests a lack of understanding of the process of Congress, the legislative process, and how things get put together on Capitol Hill, or lack of understanding about the substance in the bill, not understanding all the provisions in the bill and how they did in some cases unnecessarily infringe on civil liberties, or perhaps an arrogance that leadership, those who were responsible for providing leadership within the Justice Department, knew they were not abusing any of the provisions in the law so no changes needed to be made. I will speak to that argument shortly, but I think it is very unfortunate.

So when one has this kind of legislation, as sweeping in scope as this is, and suggests when it comes time to deal with these sunset provisions that no changes need to be made, I think shows a lack of substantive reflection on the balance between the police powers of the State I spoke about and civil liberties on the other hand.

Two years ago, I joined with a number of my colleagues in introducing the SAFE Act: Senators Durbin, Salazar, and Feingold on the Democratic side, Senators Craig, Murkowski, and myself on the Republican side. We spoke specifically to a few provisions in the PATRIOT Act where we thought we could do a better job of protecting civil liberties.

The 215 section that allows the subpoena of business or library records, the national security letter provision--the national security letter is a sweeping order issued without the approval of a judge that gives investigators access to financial data, to medical data, or to other transaction records; the roving wiretap provision that is necessary because we have new communication technologies that are more mobile than ever but where we still need to do a good job of specifying who the target is of that roving wiretap; delayed search warrants-- again, sometimes there is going to be a need for conducting a search warrant before notifying a target so that the investigation is not jeopardized. But we should have specific provisions written in the law for notifying that target after a certain period of time. As it was written, there was no period specified for notification.

Of course, the idea of sunsets is important to civil liberties anytime one is dealing with law enforcement legislation, because a sunset calls on Congress to come back, look at how a law was used, look at how it was implemented, how it affected civil liberties, and make appropriate changes.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 10 minutes.

I so modify my request.

We introduced the SAFE Act to deal with very specific areas where we thought the PATRIOT Act needed to be improved to better protect civil liberties. Some would argue that with the PATRIOT Act, as it has been rewritten, the conference agreement, that there were only a few areas now where there is a disagreement and so we ought to accept it as it is. I make a broad argument, though, that simply because we are conducting shortcuts on civil liberties in only a few areas is simply not an effective argument. I think where civil liberties are concerned, as I illustrated with the Framers' concerns, we ought to do everything in our power to make sure proper protection is provided.

A few key points about the weaknesses that remain in the PATRIOT Act, and with these weaknesses I will not be able to support the final conference report. I certainly will not support moving forward with the conference report, in part because I think these are substantive problems but also because they are problems that should be easily addressed in a reworked conference agreement. The first deals with the business and libraries provision, section 215. In section 215 we have established a very broad standard, too broad a standard, for investigators to get access to sensitive records--whether it is at a business or a library; it makes no difference. The standard is that the records simply be shown as relevant to an investigation. That does not sound inappropriate, but as a legal standard that means records could be subpoenaed that have no direct connection to a particular suspect.

As a result, the records of many innocent Americans, or the burden placed on businesses to continually produce records under this provision is going to be far too onerous.

There is also associated with this provision, this business records subpoena power, a permanent automatic gag order that prevents you from discussing the fact that this order has been issued to you as an individual or your business, and there is no judicial review of that gag order. I think this is a fundamental flaw in this conference report, the idea that you have been served with a permanent gag order to restrict your free speech, to restrict you from talking about that gag order, and it is permanent and you have no ability to appeal it in a court of law.

I would argue that taking your case, your appeal before a judge is fundamental to our system of justice in the United States of America. I would further argue that it in no way undermines law enforcement's ability to conduct an investigation to give the business or the individual the opportunity to appeal that gag order in a court of law. The argument that it might cost a little bit extra is ridiculous in the face of the need to protect individual civil liberties.

The system of judicial review for these section 215 subpoenas simply is not acceptable. Similarly, the system of judicial review on national security letters fails to meet the important test of balancing individual civil liberties. There is a very low threshold for getting a national security letter. It is not approved by a judge. The threshold is merely a ``showing of relevance,'' once again not a direct connection to a suspect, which is very problematic. Moreover, the threshold for overturning the gag order--again a restriction on the ability to even discuss the national security letter--is that you must show bad faith on the part of the Federal Government. That is virtually impossible. No individual, no business served with a national security letter will effectively be able to show bad faith on the part of the Federal Government, and therefore they will never have a national security letter or its accompanying gag order overturned.

To have meaningful judicial review you have to have a meaningful standard, a reasonable standard of showing in that court of law. I think it is fair to say, if we look around the world at different governments' attempts to eviscerate the power of due process, this is one way to do it--to have judicial review, to ``let people have their case in

a court of law,'' but set the standard of evidence or the standard for overturning an egregious decision so high that the government always wins. That is simply not acceptable where American civil liberties are concerned.

Finally, let me turn to a few of the arguments posed or made to individuals, such as Senator Leahy or Senator Feingold or me, who have brought forward these objections. One argument is what I would describe as a very broad argument, that we need to extend the PATRIOT Act, we need to fight terrorism, we need to make sure we don't undermine the ability of law enforcement in their work to deal with terrorist threats. I agree. Senator Leahy--I will take the opportunity to speak for my colleague from Vermont. He agrees we need to do all of these things. But that is not a substantive argument for not making these changes he and I support. We are all for fighting terrorism. We are all for extending the PATRIOT Act. I do not oppose the idea of subpoenaing business records or even library records or the idea of a national security letter. What I oppose is having such a powerful government force in place without countervailing protections for civil liberties.

A second argument is one I mentioned earlier: for the Justice Department to say we have not abused any provisions in the current PATRIOT Act so just extend them all as written. It doesn't matter to me whether it is a Democratic administration or Republican administration, the argument that you have not abused a poorly written law is no argument at all for extending and making permanent that poorly written law. If it does not protect civil liberties, we should modify it. We should make sure the protections are there so that no matter who holds the reins of power, in the executive or the legislative or the judicial branches of Government, those freedoms continue to be protected.

A third argument is if we do not move forward, if this bill fails to get a cloture vote this week and it goes back to conference, it will only get worse. Let me get this straight. If you vote against a bill that doesn't adequately protect civil liberties, we are going to take it back to conference and compromise civil liberties even further? I think that is an outrageous argument to make. I think there are some people who are making it, or who have made it, who do not intend it to be taken that way. But I think it is only fair that it be taken that way. That is an inappropriate threat. If the attitude of the conferees is they will further restrict civil liberties if they do not get this poorly written bill passed, then perhaps no law is better.

I do not believe that. I think there ought to be a willingness to make improvements. Again, there are no specific reasons for how these changes that I have described--judicial review of a 215 gag order, a better threshold for overturning an NSL there is no substantive argument that I have heard for how these would undermine law enforcement's ability to pursue terrorists. These arguments simply do not hold up.

Benjamin Franklin, 200 years ago, observed that:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a

little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Those words are as true today as they were over 200 years ago. There is no reason to compromise the right to due process, the right to a judicial review, to fair and reasonable standards of evidence, in the pursuit of our security and the pursuit of terrorists wherever they may be around the world. I think making these changes is reasonable. They are fair.

I have joined with Senator Leahy in introducing a 3-month extension of the existing PATRIOT Act to ensure that we have plenty of time, in a reasonable and thoughtful way, to make very modest changes that would go a long way toward ensuring this is a better bill, that it is a bill that we can be proud of, and a bill that will protect civil liberties.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I may make a point through the Chair to the minority leader, I would seek 2 minutes to offer an amendment.

Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to be added to that list for 2 minutes to offer an amendment at the end of that list.

Yes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I offer an amendment today that deals with what I consider to be a tax loophole that is in the Code that fully exempts private, for-profit corporations, owned by shareholders that have had very high levels of profit in recent years, from paying any State or local taxes. The entities I am talking about are the Government-sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These are chartered by the Federal Government. We give them a number of benefits. They help with the secondary mortgage market and have been very successful in that mission. But they are in fact private, for-profit corporations with very large profits, and they do not need to be exempt from paying State and local taxes. In fact, I think if they are really committed to the local communities and the homeowners they serve across the country, they ought to be happy to pay State and local taxes.

We have heard a lot of debate over the last several hours about Big Oil. We have even had some amendments that take away tax benefits from oil companies. Some of those amendments I have supported. There have been other amendments that actually impose special taxes on oil companies. Given the concern people seem to have with high levels of profits at oil firms in recent months, I think people should embrace the idea of getting rid of this tax loophole, imposing the same kind of legitimate State and local taxes on the GSEs as we see anywhere else.

It might be one thing if the levels of profit at these entities had been plowed back into the community. But that isn't the case. The lion's share of these profits have gone to shareholders or in some cases to exorbitant executive pay--$5 million for some of the executives at these corporations, $10 million a year in one case. Clearly, these profits are being used to put back into homeownership. These are companies that can afford to pay State and local taxes. They ought to pay State and local taxes.

I certainly encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, my amendment is quite straightforward. It deals with a very large tax loophole that allows Government-sponsored entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to avoid paying any State or local taxes whatsoever. It is a huge exemption for companies that are private, for-profit corporations, with their own shareholders. These companies have far higher profits and return on equity than so-called big oil that we have heard all of this criticism about for the last several hours.

There is no reason they cannot pay State and local taxes like any other private, for-profit company, contribute back to those States, cities, and towns in a legitimate, straightforward way through the Tax Code. I think this is appropriate. There is no reason we should have such an enormous loophole for companies that earn millions of dollars, enough to pay their top executives not $2 million a year or $6 million a year or $8 million a year but in some cases $10 million a year that their chief executives have been paid over the last 3 to 5 years.

That certainly is the kind of money that makes it legitimate for them to be paying State and local taxes like any other for-profit company.

I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. President, I appreciate the work the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from New Jersey have done on this bill.

It is absolutely true that this does represent some significant additional reforms for Amtrak. In discussions with Senator Lott from Mississippi and others, I do believe there is an opportunity to do a lot more. Unfortunately, the House has not really undertaken any reform effort at all, and that is certainly one of the concerns that I have, that this not be a dead-end process, that we do more in this bill to deal with long distance routes that lose $200 or $300 per passenger on every single car that rides on those long distance routes and labor constraints that the management of Amtrak has said they want to have modified and adjusted so they can operate more effectively and more efficiently. These items are not in this legislation, although it does represent a step forward.

I look forward to continuing to work to improve the legislation, but I certainly cannot support its adoption on this reconciliation bill.

Mr. President, I join the Senator from Nebraska in supporting this amendment. We absolutely need strong, credible, effective regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These are enormous, complex financial institutions. We want to ensure their safety and soundness. We want to ensure they stay focused on their chartered mission, which is to provide liquidity in our secondary mortgage market. It sends the wrong message if we treat them differently from other big investment services companies. It sends the wrong message if we don't have a credible regulator. We need to pass legislation that includes this kind of a provision, SEC registration for their stocks and bonds. It is common sense. We have passed legislation in the Banking Committee that is increasingly unlikely, given the opposition, lack of cooperation of the GSEs in working on this legislation. Their allied interest groups have weighed in against the legislation. I think it does a disservice to the capital markets and to the consumers if we fail to have a strong, credible regulator. I certainly support the amendment, but I will yield back to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. President, I think our energy policy and our approach to its provision ought to be driven by a need for balance, for evenhandedness, for a thoughtful approach, and that means not stepping forward and offering a lot of rhetoric, being careful about statements that might be misleading. And to that extent, earlier we heard a description about the Brooks Range and flying over the Brooks Range, and I think it is important for Members to understand the Brooks Range is not in the 1001 area, the 1.5 million acres that would be made available to leasing. It is not in there, not contained, not part of it.

So we can talk about the beauty of the Brooks Range, but it has nothing to do with this provision. We make tradeoffs all the time. You build a road, you make tradeoffs. You have to take land to build that road. You grow crops, you have to clear land and affect the environment for growing crops and food, growing cotton for clothing. You drive your car, you are using gasoline. You turn on your computer, you are using electricity. You have to build the lines to shift electricity around the country, build transmission. All of these choices in our modern society involve tradeoffs, and we should be balanced and thoughtful about how we weigh these costs and benefits.

When you look at this provision, first you can't help but look at the size--19 million acres in the Wildlife Refuge that we are talking about, three times the size of the State of New Hampshire, and this provision allows 2,000 acres to be used for production and exploration. That is an area equivalent to the size of the Manchester Airport, the airport that serves much of my State of New Hampshire. It is three times the size of New Hampshire, and we are talking about 2,000 acres to take advantage of what is by all estimates the second or third largest find of oil in our Nation's history--a million barrels per day as was pointed out, equal to all the production that was lost due to Hurricane Katrina.

Some of the critics have said, Well, yes, but if we only used energy from this source it would only supply all of the needs of America for 1 year. If you buy into that argument, then you would never support drilling another gas well anywhere in the country because it would not supply all of our energy needs for 10 or 20 or 30 years, or another oil well in east Texas or anywhere else in the country. If you buy into that argument, you basically are saying we want permanent energy dependence on imports, and that is the real goal of many of the interest groups behind this.

We need to strike a reasonable balance. Setting aside 2,000 acres in this part of the northernmost part of Alaska for the second or third largest oil find in our country's history is a reasonable, thoughtful, balanced approach. It is critical that we support this provision.

I did not support the Energy bill because I did not think it was fiscally responsible. But I think this is a rational and balanced approach, and one that I hope my colleagues will support. I yield back my time.

Mr. President, first I ask unanimous consent that the 45 minutes allocated to Senator Wyden occur after the debate on the Agriculture appropriations conference report this evening.

Second, Mr. President, I would like to correct the record. I appreciate the Senator from Colorado yielding to me, but I wish to speak in support of the McCain amendment, of which I am a cosponsor. One might imagine Senator McCain would be enormously disappointed if I came down to speak against his amendment.

By all means.

Any time I use should be taken from time allocated in favor of the amendment, if there is any time remaining.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allocated 3 minutes to speak in favor of the amendment and that the remainder of the time until 4:15 p.m. be reserved for those who wish to speak in opposition to the amendment.

To speak in favor of the amendment, which I cosponsor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment which moves the date for returning spectrum that was allocated for the transition to digital television ahead by 1 year. So instead of that spectrum being returned to the Federal Government for use for other purposes in April of 2009, it will be returned in April of 2008.

I think this makes sense for a number of reasons. First, it moves forward this process of transition. We are technologically able to make this transition. Many, if not most, of the facilities across the country are on a timetable to retrofit their equipment so they can broadcast using the digital standards. It would certainly bring revenue to the Federal Government, the American taxpayers sooner because this spectrum that is available for auction could be auctioned earlier and then put into the public domain used for new technologies, new products, for consumer safety, and that would certainly benefit consumers. But it also provides a very real benefit to public safety because moving this timeframe up by 1 year would ultimately make the portion of the spectrum, about 20 percent of the entire spectrum coming back, available for use for public safety sooner. I am sure this is a point that was strongly emphasized by Senator McCain in his remarks.

Those who support or oppose moving up this timetable would probably agree this process has taken much longer than anyone anticipated when it began back in the early 1990s. I don't think it serves the American people well to drag it out any longer. I am sure there may be some concerns about the precise date, but I think once we set a date sooner rather than later, markets will react, the companies that are providing services will react, and public safety will certainly react because goodness knows they can use the additional spectrum to meet the needs of

State, Federal, and local first responders who are dealing with public safety needs every day.

I believe this is a commonsense amendment. I was pleased to support it in committee, and I am pleased to support it on the floor.

I yield back the remainder of my time to those who are prepared to speak in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. President: I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, November 2, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., in SH-216, on pending Committee business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, November 2 at 9:30 a.m. The Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold the second in a series of two hearings to receive testimony on the response to Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 2, 2005, at 3 p.m. to hold a hearing on U.S.-India Nuclear Energy Cooperation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, November 2, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing entitled, ``Hurricane Katrina: Why Did the Levees Fail?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, November 2, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the In Re Tribal Lobbying Matters, Et Al.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 2, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Wednesday, November 2, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. in Dirksen 226.

Agenda:

S.J. Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 2 at 2 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1541, to protect, conserve, and restore public lands administered by the Department of the Interior or the Forest Service and adjacent land through cooperative cost-share grants to control and mitigate the spread of invasive species, and for other purposes; S. 1548, to provide for the conveyance of certain forest service land to the city of Coffman Cove, Alaska; S. 1552, to amend public law 97-435 to extend the authorization for the Secretary of the Interior to release certain conditions contained in a patent concerning certain lands conveyed by the United States to Eastern Washington University until December 31, 2009; H.R. 482, to provide for a land exchange involving Federal lands in the Lincoln National Forest in the State of New Mexico; and S. 405, a bill to provide for the conveyance of certain public land in Clark County, Nevada, for use as a heliport.

Mr. President, today I introduced the ``Specially Adapted Housing Grants Act of 2005'' to help all disabled veterans move home from medical facilities. The bill upgrades eligibility criteria for housing assistance grants to better reflect the needs of today's veteran community.

Before discussing the legislation's merits, I want to acknowledge my House colleague, Representative John Boozman of Arkansas, who serves as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity. Congressman Boozman has demonstrated real leadership on this issue through his bill, the ``Veterans Housing/Improvement Act of 2005, H.R. 3665. Section 101 of Congressman Boozman's bill is almost identical to the measure that I have sponsored. The House Veterans Affairs' Committee recently approved his legislation, and the full House is expected to consider the bill in the near future. I am grateful to Congressman Boozman for his considerable efforts to advance a measure that will help improve the lives of many disabled veterans, and I am happy to advance his efforts here in the Senate with this bill.

I appreciate the support of my Senate colleagues, Senators Durbin, Vitter, Kerry and Pryor, who have added their names as original cosponsors of the ``Specially Adapted Housing Grants Act of 2005.'' Their endorsement of this bill represents bipartisan agreement on Capitol Hill that Congress must constantly evaluate veterans programs to make certain that our Nation provides responsive support to veterans.

While representing New Hampshire in the House and Senate, I have worked to ensure that those who served in our armed services receive their hard-earned benefits quickly and in full. Too often, out-of-date and burdensome regulations deny qualified veterans from receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. Whenever possible, it is imperative that we remove red tape that does not take into account the realities faced by today's veterans.

Guided by these facts, I have introduced legislation to reform rules that determine requirements for a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) grant program that helps many disabled veterans make their homes suitable for occupancy. Currently, a disabled veteran must at least partly own his or her residence to receive VA housing assistance grants to perform necessary residence modifications, such as installing wheelchair ramps or railings. However, many younger veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have not yet had the opportunity to become homeowners. Being ineligible for VA help to modify their homes, these veterans and their families often are compelled to either shoulder the costs of retrofitting their residences or face extended stays in VA medical facilities.

My bill would establish a 5-year pilot program to allow severely disabled veterans who live temporarily with family to receive up to $10,000 in adaptive housing assistance; less severely disabled veterans could receive a maximum of $2,000. This grant money will help ensure that all disabled veterans--regardless of whether they own property-- are able to leave hospitals and return home as quickly as possible.

Also, mindful that these individuals will likely purchase their own residence, the bill would allow disabled veterans to receive two additional Specially Adaptive Housing Grants to be used for homes that they own in the future. Severely disabled veterans could receive a total of $50,000 to modify residences; less severely disabled veterans would be eligible for a total of $10,000. Only one of the three total grants could be used for a temporary residence, such as a family-owned home.

America's veterans have made enormous sacrifices to protect our Nation and the ideals for which it stands. Our country owes a special obligation to those men and women who have become disabled as a result of their service. Under no circumstances should these American heroes be divided into groups of ``haves'' and ``have nots.''

This Nation can do no less than to ensure that all disabled veterans are returned to the normalcy of home life as quickly and comfortably as possible. The common sense changes put forth in the legislation I have introduced aim to do just that, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to ensure that its provisions become law as soon as possible.

Mr. President, today I introduced the ``Specially Adapted Housing Grants Act of 2005'' to help all disabled veterans move home from medical facilities. The bill upgrades eligibility criteria for housing assistance grants to better reflect the needs of today's veteran community.

Before discussing the legislation's merits, I want to acknowledge my House colleague, Representative John Boozman of Arkansas, who serves as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity. Congressman Boozman has demonstrated real leadership on this issue through his bill, the ``Veterans Housing/Improvement Act of 2005, H.R. 3665. Section 101 of Congressman Boozman's bill is almost identical to the measure that I have sponsored. The House Veterans Affairs' Committee recently approved his legislation, and the full House is expected to consider the bill in the near future. I am grateful to Congressman Boozman for his considerable efforts to advance a measure that will help improve the lives of many disabled veterans, and I am happy to advance his efforts here in the Senate with this bill.

I appreciate the support of my Senate colleagues, Senators Durbin, Vitter, Kerry and Pryor, who have added their names as original cosponsors of the ``Specially Adapted Housing Grants Act of 2005.'' Their endorsement of this bill represents bipartisan agreement on Capitol Hill that Congress must constantly evaluate veterans programs to make certain that our Nation provides responsive support to veterans.

While representing New Hampshire in the House and Senate, I have worked to ensure that those who served in our armed services receive their hard-earned benefits quickly and in full. Too often, out-of-date and burdensome regulations deny qualified veterans from receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. Whenever possible, it is imperative that we remove red tape that does not take into account the realities faced by today's veterans.

Guided by these facts, I have introduced legislation to reform rules that determine requirements for a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) grant program that helps many disabled veterans make their homes suitable for occupancy. Currently, a disabled veteran must at least partly own his or her residence to receive VA housing assistance grants to perform necessary residence modifications, such as installing wheelchair ramps or railings. However, many younger veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have not yet had the opportunity to become homeowners. Being ineligible for VA help to modify their homes, these veterans and their families often are compelled to either shoulder the costs of retrofitting their residences or face extended stays in VA medical facilities.

My bill would establish a 5-year pilot program to allow severely disabled veterans who live temporarily with family to receive up to $10,000 in adaptive housing assistance; less severely disabled veterans could receive a maximum of $2,000. This grant money will help ensure that all disabled veterans--regardless of whether they own property-- are able to leave hospitals and return home as quickly as possible.

Also, mindful that these individuals will likely purchase their own residence, the bill would allow disabled veterans to receive two additional Specially Adaptive Housing Grants to be used for homes that they own in the future. Severely disabled veterans could receive a total of $50,000 to modify residences; less severely disabled veterans would be eligible for a total of $10,000. Only one of the three total grants could be used for a temporary residence, such as a family-owned home.

America's veterans have made enormous sacrifices to protect our Nation and the ideals for which it stands. Our country owes a special obligation to those men and women who have become disabled as a result of their service. Under no circumstances should these American heroes be divided into groups of ``haves'' and ``have nots.''

This Nation can do no less than to ensure that all disabled veterans are returned to the normalcy of home life as quickly and comfortably as possible. The common sense changes put forth in the legislation I have introduced aim to do just that, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to ensure that its provisions become law as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I have a technical modification to one of my amendments that has been pending. It is amendment No. 2215. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside, that amendment be called up, and I be allowed to submit the modification to the desk.

I yield the floor.

The Senator is correct.

Mr. President, as the Senator from Massachusetts indicated, I would like to rise very briefly to offer two amendments and then allow the Senator from Massachusetts to continue with the remarks on his own amendment. I will offer a few remarks, but hopefully we can work out the issues that might exist on these two amendments.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside that I might call up amendment No. 2214.

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

Mr. President, this amendment calls for $5 million to be allocated to a vision rehabilitation therapy demonstration program under Medicare. It is an amendment that is fully offset. This is a demonstration program that was established under report language crafted by Chairman Specter last year. This is an opportunity to give seniors additional independence by helping to cover some of the cost of vision rehabilitation therapy for those who have vision impairment. It helps them to do the very basic things of getting around their home, getting outside the home, doing errands. By maintaining this independence by dealing with vision problems, we reduce the risk of injury and the costs of injuries associated with vision impairment.

As I indicated, it is offset. It is an existing program. This additional $5 million in funding would ensure that the demonstration is conducted across a number of States, a number of cities, so that CMS has the data it needs to judge the efficacy of the program.

I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

Amendment No. 2215

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendments aside, and I call up amendment No. 2215.

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

Mr. President, this second amendment deals with community health center funding. Community health centers have been supported broadly in Congress and very broadly by the administration. What this amendment does is bring the appropriate level of funding for community health centers in this bill up to the level requested by the President. Less than 25 percent of the applications for new community health centers were funded last year. That indicates a need for continued significant levels of funding.

Health centers are the first line of defense for those who are served by Medicaid, for those without insurance, and for those who are underinsured. Community health centers provide a very strong, competent, qualified level of service. They are absolutely instrumental in today's health care environment.

This brings the funding up to the President's requested level. It is offset so it is not subject to a point of order. This bill is about setting priorities. I respect the challenges the chairman and the members of the subcommittee have to deal with in setting priorities. It is never easy. I provide a fractional across-the-board reduction to support this additional $200 million, but I am certainly willing to work with the chairman and members of the subcommittee to find another appropriate offset. I hope he and the Members of the Senate will support my amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, if I might reserve the right to object, we had this conversation on the floor before. The bill has been brought to the floor, and attempts have been made to pass it by unanimous consent.

This bill includes provisions that change the reimbursement rates under Medicaid for 29 States, regardless of how many evacuees they might have in that State, regardless of whether they were affected by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. It is completely inappropriate to try to make adjustments in Medicaid under the umbrella or the cover of hurricane relief.

There are legitimate questions about whether and how we can provide assistance to those under Medicaid affected by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita.

Eight States have already been granted waivers to modify eligibility to help provide that coverage. But in an effort to deal with some of the concerns I have--and other Senators have concerns about this bill-- this $9 billion bill to support a statute that gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to change reimbursement rates to compensate States for additional costs incurred under Medicaid as a result of the hurricane, we would put into law the uncompensated care pool that is part of this legislation to help deal with some of the costs outside of Medicaid. We have even proposed providing some support and assistance to community health centers, something that is not even in this legislation--community health centers being so critical to providing assistance not just to Medicaid beneficiaries but to those who are underinsured or those who are without any health insurance for whatever reason. I think these are very reasonable proposals.

I think this is a good-faith effort to address some of the concerns that have been presented, but even in the absence of legislation through the State waiver process, through the efforts of Secretary Leavitt of Health and Human Services, I think every good-faith effort is being made to provide assistance, to provide coverage to those in need.

Given that fact, I will object at this time to the unanimous-consent request.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I apologize for taking additional time, I know Senator Reed is due to be recognized by consent as soon as this lengthy and, in my opinion, unnecessary discussion is complete. It is important to note this bill does not take the funding out of FEMA as has been represented. We suggested that.

Madam President, I object.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the McCain amendment. There has been a lot of discussion about the new challenges we face in dealing with organized terrorist cells around the world. The complexity and the nature of those terrorist threats requires us to engage in ever more combat activity that is nonconventional. We want to make sure we do what we can to secure transportation and infrastructure, that we do what we can to deploy technology, that we improve our preparedness. But it does not change the fact that in dealing with terrorism our greatest asset or our greatest tool will be intelligence gathering. Intelligence gathering will require direct engagement with and interrogation of suspects, trying to gather information that can help us disrupt these networks.

We are trying to gather information that can help us prevent future attacks. That process of interrogation, needless to say, is complex and challenging. We have seen many of the problems and some of the abuses that have been documented by some of the previous speakers.

I think this calls out for a process that is more clear and better defined; interrogation tools, techniques, and procedures that we can be sure are applied consistently in the field. That is why I think this amendment is so important. That is why I think we have a fundamental obligation to support this amendment or at least some approach to clarify these processes, standards, and procedures used for interrogation.

I can think of two basic reasons that this is important and that it will benefit our troops and our country. First, by establishing clear lines, procedures, and process for interrogation, we help our own troops, whether working in the uniformed services or working in covert operations or other intelligence-gathering activities. We can be sure that they know what the allowances are, that they know what the process is, that they know what the procedure is, and, in effect, we provide them with appropriate protection and safeguards in doing their job.

In a similar way, we provide those individuals with protection in the field of combat should they be taken as a prisoner of war. We want to make sure our enemies do not have justification for using any interrogation techniques that we would consider to be improper, cruel, or inhumane.

First, we are providing protection and establishing this clarity. Second, I think we are sending an important message to our allies and our adversaries--a message that while the legal standards that are enshrined in the Constitution do not apply to everyone in the world, our commitment to these basic principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, our commitment to basic principles of human dignity and human rights do apply and we must find ways to define these standards, to clarify this commitment, even in the area of interrogating enemy combatants and interrogating potential terrorists, suspected terrorists, in the field.

So we send a clear message to our allies and adversaries that our commitment to these principles is real, that our desire to establish uniform standards is real.

I do not know, not having the experience of some of my colleagues, whether this is the perfect standard, whether the requirements and the precise language in this amendment are ideal, but I think this is a fair-minded approach that allows the military itself, through its code of conduct, to establish these definitions that allows for the establishment of a classified annex to deal with covert operations, deal with the most sensitive of captives and the most sensitive of interrogations so that we are not undermining the intelligence gathering that we are attempting to facilitate.

In fact, the approach that is taken has been endorsed, as was indicated by the Senator from Arizona, by many who have had very close and intimate experience with this type of interrogation. In the letter that Senator McCain entered into the Record there were two particular points that were made that I want to underscore, and that is, first, ``the abuse of prisoners hurts America's cause.'' I think that is just a fundamental and important underlying point in this debate, that prisoner abuse hurts our cause. It hurts the moral arguments we are trying to make, the political arguments we are trying to make, and it does put our own men and women serving in uniform or in intelligence- gathering operations at risk.

Second, the United States should have one standard for interrogating enemy prisoners that is effective, lawful, and humane. That point brings me back to the concern that we send a clear message to our allies and adversaries that our commitment to human dignity and human rights is universal.

So I am pleased to support the amendment. I think it is a very important first step. I think it gives the military the flexibility that it deserves, and I hope the military will use that flexibility well to add clarity, standards, process, and procedure that will enable us to continue to interrogate prisoners and continue to gather intelligence in dealing with these terrorist networks around the world, but do it in a way that is consistent with the intent, the principle, and the philosophy of our Constitution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I might momentarily reserve the right to object, Mr. Baucus, the Senator from Montana, has given a powerful description of people who are in great need of help. There is no question about that. Many of the States that are affected and other States have taken steps to provide help in many areas, to set up uncompensated care funds to provide assistance to evacuees. I think the Senator from Montana would argue that it is not enough, he would like to do more, and his intention is obviously to bring this bill to the floor to deal with some of these concerns. I have spoken before on this and will not speak at great length now. I do not believe this bill is the right way and the best way to address those concerns. It has a cost of $9 billion. It does include provisions for assistance to States regardless of whether they have evacuees located in them, regardless whether they were hit by the hurricanes.

I and other Members have been working with Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus and their staffs to try to come to some agreement, but that has not happened. The question is not whether we should or want to provide assistance, but we want to make sure we do it in a way that ensures that resources get where they are most needed and in a way that takes advantage of the $45 billion or so that has already been appropriated but has not been committed yet.

So I do object to the unanimous consent request. I know Senator Lincoln from Arkansas and Senator Landrieu from Louisiana wish to speak on this issue, and I will be more than happy to let each of them do so before returning to the floor, if I am able to do so today, and offer a few remarks.

I do object at this time.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mr. President, I will respond in part in supporting my colleagues who objected. We do not object in any way to providing assistance where it is needed. We have already done so, passing $62 billion in new spending, $9 billion in tax relief. That is a very great core relief effort that is providing assistance to those very much in need in the Gulf Coast States and around the country.

The question and the point we object to is whether we consider this bill tonight by unanimous consent, an additional $9 billion in spending, several new programs, some of which do not really have anything to do directly with providing emergency assistance for health care or any other services to those people who need it in the Gulf States. That is the question, whether it is imperative we consider this bill now or whether we can move forward in a more deliberative fashion, and whether some of the elements in this bill can be improved.

As I said, we provided $62 billion in appropriations, $9 billion in tax relief. So at the very beginning of this discussion we have to ask, with over $40 billion still unexpended and uncommitted, why can't we use a portion of that to cover some of these important needs, some of the health care needs the Senator from Arkansas just described? I think that is one basic reason why I and others object to moving forward tonight on this bill. We ought to be able to find a way to utilize some of the $62 billion we have already passed through the House and the Senate.

Second, as I indicated, there is a provision in this legislation that changes reimbursement rates for Medicaid for 29 States, regardless of whether and how many displaced people from the gulf are currently housed in that State, currently seeking services in that State, currently looking for health care or employment in that State. For 29 States whose reimbursement rate was going to change in 2006, we wave the wand and say: No change to reimbursement rates regardless of how you might have been impacted by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. That has nothing to do directly with providing the assistance, the compassion, the care, the health care the previous speakers were describing.

I question whether this is an appropriate vehicle to include such a provision. There is $1.5 billion for disaster relief in Medicaid--well intended, well directed. But currently CMS, the regulator of Medicaid, is allowing States to apply for waivers to deliver the very kinds of benefits contemplated in that $1.5 billion program. In fact, Texas and Mississippi and Florida and Alabama have already applied for and have received waivers to do those very things contemplated in the legislation, which begs the question, is this necessary? And if it is necessary in some shape or form, do we need to commit $1.5 billion, or can we wait and at least better understand how the waiver process is proceeding, which has been approved already in those four States? And I hope other States that might apply will get a similar fast response.

There is also $800 million in this legislation to provide assistance, financial support to individuals who are covered by private insurance, though indirectly that will provide payment to private insurance companies whose participants were affected by the hurricanes. I would want, first, to answer the question: What are those private insurers doing for the employees they had covered? Are they walking away from those employees and those businesses because they were affected by this tremendous natural catastrophe? I hope that is not the case. I do not know that is the case. But we ought to understand what obligations, what commitments these private insurers are meeting before we commit an additional $800 million that might allow them to walk away from some of their economic or moral obligations for those they have covered in the past.

So $1.5 billion in a disaster relief program that is already being addressed through the waiver process, $800 million in support for those covered by private insurance, and changes to reimbursement rates for 29 States, regardless of how they were or might have been impacted by these hurricanes--I think all of those items call into question both the structure and the timing of this legislation. I think we can do better.

I think there are a lot of questions as to how the $62 billion that has already been committed is being spent. Other Members have raised the question of working harder to find offsets so any additional spending will have a minimum impact on the deficit and the national debt, which is a challenge and a

crisis we are all going to be faced with today and in future generations as well. We do not want to create a future economic catastrophe in our heartfelt efforts to deal with this natural disaster today.

There is no question that we need to provide assistance, that we should provide assistance, and that the House and Senate will continue to provide assistance, in all likelihood, in addition to the $62 billion we have already committed and the $9 billion in tax relief that has been added to that. But we need to work very hard to make sure we know how that money is being utilized. I think we should do everything in our power to allow some of those funds to be used for these critical health care costs. And we need to do much more to try to find ways to cover this additional spending so we do not increase the deficit and leave an unfortunate financial legacy for future generations.

I think my colleague's objection was warranted. I do not think being more deliberative in addressing this legislation and reviewing this legislation will hurt its efficacy and effectiveness in the long run. But I do think it will serve the public and the country much better in the long run to be as fiscally responsible as we possibly can in addressing these critical needs in the Gulf States.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.