Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise this evening to talk about an issue that affects Americans all across the country, and that is the credibility of the FDA.

I thank Senator Bennett and Senator Enzi, who are both here, for their work in a bipartisan fashion on the language that was put into the Agriculture appropriations bill. I also thank Senator Kohl for his help.

Every time I come to the floor to talk about the FDA and plan B, I hope it will be the last time. I continue to hope that the FDA and HHS will do the right thing and put science, safety, and efficacy over politics. Unfortunately, over the past couple of years, I, along with millions of Americans, have been disappointed time and time again.

I have always supported a strong and independent Food and Drug Administration. It is the only way in which the FDA can truly operate effectively and with the confidence of American consumers and health care providers. Americans have to have faith that when they walk into their pharmacy or their local grocery store that the products they purchase are safe and effective and that their approval has been based on sound science, not on political pressure, not on pandering to interest groups.

That is why the application process for plan B emergency contraceptives has been so troubling to me.

Back in December 2003, 2 years ago, the FDA's own scientific advisory board overwhelmingly recommended approval of plan B over-the-counter application by a vote of 23 to 4. But the FDA has not adhered to its guidelines for drug approval and continues to drag its heels.

In fact, Alastair Wood, who is a member of that advisory panel, said:

What's disturbing is that the science was overwhelming

here, and the FDA is supposed to make decisions based on

science.

It is obvious to me--to many of my colleagues--and to millions of American women that something other than science is going on now at the FDA, and it is far past time to get to the bottom of it.

That is why I am especially pleased that I have been able to secure bipartisan language in the Agriculture appropriations conference report that expresses the sense of both bodies of Congress that enough is enough.

The language simply says:

The conferees remain concerned about the legal and

regulatory issues relating to approval of drugs as both

prescription drugs and over the counter products, and urge

the FDA to expedite rulemaking on this topic.

If the leaders of FDA and HHS refuse to take the steps to restore the confidence of the American consumers and FDA's ability to promote safe treatments, then Congress has to step in. The health and well-being of the American people should not blow with the political winds. Caring for our people is an American issue, and part of that goal is ensuring we have access to safe, effective medicines in a timely fashion.

How can we trust the FDA to move quickly on vaccines for global pandemics if they continue to operate the way they have on plan B?

Time and time again, I, along with Senator Clinton of New York and others, have asked simply for a decision on plan B. We have not asked for a yes or a no, just a decision. This continued foot-dragging is unusual, it is unwarranted, and it is unprofessional. This continued delay goes against everything the FDA's own advisory panel found nearly 2 years ago: that plan B is safe, effective, and should be available over the counter. There is no credible scientific reason to continue to deny increased access to this safe health care option, but there is even less reason to deny an answer.

Yesterday marked another deadline in the approval process for plan B. Yesterday was the last day of the highly unusual 60-day comment period that was asked for by FDA. Senator Clinton and I joined with nearly 10,000 Americans in calling on the FDA to take a real step toward closing the agency's credibility gap by making a prompt decision based on scientific evidence.

I am on the floor tonight to say I hope the FDA does just that. The language we secured in this conference report is a good step, but it is not the last word on this issue. The problem with politics subverting the FDA's adherence to science and its integrity is so profound and so urgent that I intend to use every tool available to me as a Senator to make sure this discussion about our priorities and our future is not lost.

I yield back my time.

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

Mr. President, I am here this morning to talk about a dangerous flaw in the Medicare prescription drug program that is about to take effect. This flaw is a ticking time bomb for more than 6 million Americans, for our communities and our health care providers. That fuse is going to detonate on January 1.

We cannot allow low-income seniors and the disabled to lose their direct coverage. We cannot leave our doctors and hospitals and nursing homes unprepared for the biggest change in decades. And we should not be pushing hundreds of thousands of people who need care onto our local communities. We can't wait. We have to fix this problem today. That is why I will be offering an amendment later this morning.

I have been working with Senators Rockefeller and Bingaman to address the immediate crisis. I thank them for their leadership. I have also introduced my own bill to protect our most vulnerable. It is the Medicare HEALS Act, S. 1822.

I have been traveling around my State. I have been meeting with people in Seattle, Lakewood, Yakima, Aberdeen, and Olympia. I want my colleagues to know, everywhere I go, people are angry and confused. And they are very worried, with good reason.

One senior told me:

Everyone I have talked to is totally confused--my doctor,

my pharmacist, even the Medicare number you are supposed to

call.

Another one said:

If we can't understand this, this whole [Medicare] plan is

going to fail.

Everywhere I went, people were confused. There were questions that I couldn't answer. When I turned to the doctors sitting next to me, they didn't know the answer. And neither did the pharmacists or the patient advocates. If Senators and doctors and experts do not understand this, how can we expect an 80-year-old person with serious medical problems to understand this complicated new program? We can't. So we need more time and more resources to make this prescription drug plan work.

One person I met with said:

Please give us more time. Give us the chance to understand

this so we don't make a mistake when we sign up.

One panelist told me:

Taking away something from those that need it the most . .

. is not the American way.

I couldn't agree more. That is why I am here this morning to talk about this, and that is why I will be offering an amendment shortly after we go to the bill.

I have many concerns with the Medicare prescription drug law. I voted against it in 2003 because I believed that seniors deserve better and that America can do better than that. I am concerned about the complexity, the coverage gap, whether needed drugs will be covered. I am concerned about retirees losing the good coverage they have today. And I am concerned about the late enrollment penalty that is going to punish seniors who need more time to pick the right plan. I am working with many other Senators to address all of those concerns. But today the most urgent problem is the way the new law treats our most vulnerable people, people with low incomes, the disabled, and those facing serious medical challenges like AIDS.

This law takes away the critical drug coverage these people have today and puts them into a new program that could charge them more money in exchange for less drug coverage. If they don't sign up for a plan, they are randomly assigned one. Either way, the prescriptions they need may not be covered. Because these Americans are living on the financial brink, an interruption of their drug coverage or a new copayment could keep them from getting the drugs they need to live on. The people who are being affected don't know what is going to happen. The doctors and pharmacists, they don't understand it either. This entire mess is going to burst into the open on January 1. We need to take action to prevent this catastrophe now because it is only a few months away.

To understand this problem, let's look at how our most vulnerable get their prescription drugs today and how that is about to change. Today, about 6.4 million Americans with low incomes get help from two programs: Medicare at the Federal level and Medicaid at the State level. These individuals are sometimes what we call dual eligibles because they are eligible for assistance from both Medicare and Medicaid. What Medicare does not cover, the States usually cover. For example, the Federal program did not cover prescription drugs. The State programs filled in that gap. The State coverage is often called wraparound coverage, and it is critical for our most vulnerable families. As a result, these individuals get the drugs they need, often without copayments or deductibles.

But there is a big problem coming January 1. The new drug program prohibits States from providing the extra help they do provide today. Instead, what it does is move these people into the Medicare program alone, which will require higher out-of-pocket payments and which will most likely cover fewer drugs. To me, it doesn't make sense to take away the good coverage that vulnerable families have today, force them into a program that might not meet their needs, charge them more money in the process, and then prohibit our States from helping out these most vulnerable people. It doesn't make sense, but that is exactly what this new drug program will do unless we fix it before January 1.

In fact, the new Medicare prescription drug program changes the coverage of our most vulnerable in five ways: It imposes higher costs-- those are premiums, copays and deductibles; it covers fewer drugs; it blocks States from providing extra help as they do today; it provides no transition period to ensure that these low-income residents don't face these gaps in coverage; and it penalizes people who need more time to pick the right plan for them.

These are real people we are talking about. I want to introduce two of them. Earlier this month in Seattle, I met a woman named Kathryn Cole. She is 36 years old. She is disabled, and she is living on Social Security disability. She fills about 15 prescriptions each month, and her monthly income is $757. She told me:

Even if the copay were only $5, that adds up to $75 a

month. I don't have the kind of extra money to squeeze out of

my budget.

Kathryn asked me:

Which week am I supposed to not eat?

People like Kathryn are living on the financial edge. They cannot afford to pay more for their medication. They need our help. In Olympia, WA, I met a man named William Havens. He is 50 years old, living with HIV/AIDS. He takes 43 pills a day. William told me:

For the first time [in my life], I realize I'm going to

have to make a choice between pills and food.

It is outrageous that this new law is going to make life so much harder for people like Kathryn and William. In addition to hurting people, the new drug program is going to hurt our health care system. It is going to have a costly impact on nursing homes, doctors, pharmacists, and hospitals. Many of these dual-eligible individuals live in nursing homes. Now nursing homes are going to have to navigate all these new plans out there.

In my State of Washington, there are at least 14 of these new plans. Some States have as many as 40 or more, all with different costs and different formularies. Nursing home managers are going to have to see which plan each resident has been assigned to and if their needed drugs are covered.

In Olympia, I met with a Dr. David Fairbrook. He is in private practice, and he is also the medical director of two skilled nursing facilities which care for 150 people. He was very concerned about his patients being randomly assigned to plans that don't meet their medical needs. He said patients may be denied drugs. They may be forced to change their medications, and they could face a time-consuming, stressful appeals process. He predicts there will be ``chaos for nursing staff regarding coordination of multiple suppliers. It further duplicates paperwork and documentation requirements.''

That is a tremendous new administrative burden for understaffed and underfunded nursing homes and care providers who care for people we know--our parents, grandparents, sisters, and brothers.

That is who is going to be affected by this new law if we don't take action.

Unless we act, the new program is going to make the work of our pharmacists across the country much harder. They are literally going to be on the front lines. They may well be forced to deny coverage to seniors. And by the way, each one of these pharmacists has to go in contract with each of these new drug plans in their States.

Now CMS is telling us that pharmacists will be able to look up and see what plan someone has been assigned to. But frankly, I have to say, given the error and the mistakes CMS has made so far, I don't have a lot of confidence that this is going to be a flawless situation in transition. Remember, the people who will be hurt have no financial cushion. They are living on fixed incomes and they don't have an extra $20 or $30 for copayments or premiums. If they are turned away at the pharmacy counter, they do not have the money to pay for those drugs now and get reimbursed later when all the paperwork is sorted out.

Doctors are going to be on the front line in this, too. Doctors are going to have to know which drugs are on the formulary. They may have to help patients appeal any denials, and they will

have to treat patients who have gone without their medicine.

One doctor told me, ``Doctors don't have the information they need on this yet. If patients pick the wrong plan and their medicine is not covered, it can have serious medical harm.''

Hospitals are also going to be affected. They are going to have to navigate all of these new plans. They are going to have to deal with patients who haven't been able to get their prescriptions. In fact, for many poor families, the only place to get these medicines will be the emergency room, and that is going to increase the cost of health care for every single one of us.

So as you can see, this new drug law is going to impose an expensive and very confusing administrative burden on our doctors, on our pharmacists, on our hospitals, and our nursing homes. In this country I think we can do a lot better than that.

The amendment I will be offering today says let's fix this problem before people realize they can't get the prescriptions they need. My amendment simply provides emergency funding to prevent this disaster.

First, it ensures that our most vulnerable don't lose their current drug coverage. It will provide $2 billion in emergency funding to make sure our low-income seniors do not lose their benefits or suffer a gap in coverage. That money will allow our States to help the low-income residents they have, people who currently get help from State drug assistance programs, and people being helped by AIDS drug assistance programs.

My amendment will protect our most vulnerable, including any beneficiary with income below 150 percent of the Federal poverty level and any beneficiary currently eligible for Medicaid through ``spend down'' requirements.

It is going to give our States the flexibility to protect the people who live in those States. States could provide coverage through Medicaid or as a separate drug assistance program. And importantly, my amendment provides accountability. States will be required to notify CMS of their plan for ensuring no lapse in benefits for low-income beneficiaries.

Secondly, my amendment ensures that everyone knows about the changes that are coming. It requires States to notify those currently eligible for Medicaid and Medicare assistance. I can't tell you how many people I talked to when I was in my State who said: I have not been notified that I need to make a change. No one has told me. And yet we are 2 months away from them being assigned a plan.

States would also notify pharmacists. They would notify community health centers, rural health clinics, hospitals, critical access hospitals, doctors, and other Medicaid-eligible providers that assistance is available.

Providers will be allowed to seek reimbursement for any uncompensated costs associated with providing medically necessary drugs to these people.

In summary, my amendment simply protects our most vulnerable and makes sure that everyone involved knows what is happening.

This new Medicare prescription drug plan that has been passed has a lot of problems, but the most urgent one is what is going to happen to our most vulnerable patients and the difficulty it will cause our health care providers such as hospitals, nursing homes, doctors, and pharmacists. Time is running out. As of January 1, millions of vulnerable Americans are going to be forced into a new system they haven't been told about, they don't understand, and it will not meet their needs. We can avoid this train wreck. Senators who are concerned about the health and well-being of their own constituents but who are concerned about the costs have other options. We can support efforts on the reconciliation to provide additional time to transition into this plan and we can make changes to the Medicare Modernization Act to let the States provide coverage they have available through Medicaid during this transition.

No matter what, this is a problem. Either we spend the money now to prevent this crisis, I warn my colleagues, or we are going to have to push back the deadline so we can make this transition smoothly. People's lives are hanging in the balance.

I urge my colleagues to stand up today for those who don't have a voice, and for the doctors, hospitals, pharmacists, and nursing homes, and give them the relief and protection my amendment provides.

I will be offering this amendment in the Chamber today and I urge my colleagues' support.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2220 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I talked about this amendment earlier today. It provides stopgap coverage for low-income seniors and disabled individuals who may lose their benefits or suffer a gap in coverage due to the implementation of the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside and we come back to the amendment to discuss it.

Mr. President, earlier today I was on the floor and offered amendment No. 2220 that was set aside. We were supposed to have a vote on that this evening. It was not in the queue. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on amendment No. 2220 occur before the cloture vote tomorrow morning.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2285 be called up and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I rise this evening to offer an amendment that really need not be offered. In fact, each time I come to the floor of the Senate to talk about Plan B and the FDA, I hope it will be the last time. I continue to hope that the FDA or Health and Human Services will do the right thing and finally put science and safety and efficacy over politics. Unfortunately, over the course of the past several years, as you can see by the timeline shown behind me, I, along with millions of Americans, have been disappointed time and time again.

I have always supported a strong and independent Food and Drug Administration. It is the only way in which the FDA can truly operate effectively and with the confidence of American consumers and health care providers. Americans have to have faith that when they walk into their local grocery store or their local pharmacy, the products they purchase are safe, effective, and that their approval has been based on sound science.

They have to be assured that those decisions were not based on political pressure or pandering to interest groups. That is why the application process for Plan B emergency contraceptives has been so troubling to me and many others.

Back in December of 2003, almost 2 years ago, the FDA's own scientific advisory board overwhelmingly recommended approval of Plan B's over-the-counter application by a vote of 23 to 4. But the FDA has not adhered to its own guidelines for drug approval and continues to this day, after all of these actions, to drag its feet.

In fact, Alastair Wood, who is a member of the advisory panel, said:

What's disturbing is that the science was overwhelming

here, and the FDA is supposed to make decisions based on

science.

It is obvious to me and to many of my colleagues--and to millions of American women and men--that something other than science is going on at the FDA. It is far past time to get to the bottom of it. That is why tonight I am offering this amendment which will shift $3 million from the Office of the Secretary to the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Health and Human Services. This funding will help the inspector general's office to investigate potential mismanagement at the FDA. This investigation will be separate from ongoing investigations of the former Commissioner, Lester Crawford, and it will include, but not be limited to, over-the-counter application for Plan

Mr. President, I rise today in memory of Paul and Sheila Wellstone. It is hard to believe that on this date 3 years ago, the lives of Paul and Sheila Wellstone, and others, were taken in a plane crash in Minnesota. On that day, I lost a good friend, the Senate lost a leader, and the American people lost an advocate who was never afraid to stand up and speak for those who had no voice.

Today I honor my friend and colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, who inspired so many people to speak up and to serve. Even as I stand here today, I cannot imagine that when I turn around I won't see Paul standing at his desk, his arms flailing in the air, making his point with great passion.

Paul inspired me to run for the U.S. Senate. His brilliant example reminded me that you don't need to be powerful or rich to make a difference. You just need to have an honest concern for others, an optimistic spirit, and the courage to act. Paul embodied these traits.

I am grateful for the time we had with Paul. He and I worked on everything from domestic violence and education to providing health care to veterans and protecting families from asbestos.

As the month of October, which is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, draws to a close, there is much the Senate has accomplished on this issue. The Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, which contains many improvements to the current law, has

passed the Senate. But the absence of the Wellstones has truly been felt. Paul and Sheila were such champions for victims of domestic violence, especially in the area of economic security.

Paul knew that it is important to address the economic barriers that trap women in violent homes or relationships. That is why he and I worked together to introduce bills to provide economic protections for victims. I am proud to carry on the legacy of Paul and Sheila Wellstone, and in their honor I have introduced the Security and Financial Empowerment, SAFE Act, which will protect and even save the lives of victims of domestic or sexual violence and their families.

We are all poorer for the loss of Paul Wellstone, his wife Sheila, his daughter Marcia, the members of his staff, and the pilots who were taken from us on this day 3 years ago. But I continue to hope that each one of us who are here will take on part of Paul's legacy--for example, the spirit to speak out for the underprivileged or for the woman on welfare because of domestic violence who is trying to get back on her feet.

If we can remember to fight for all Americans no matter what challenges they face, and do so with respect and dignity, then Paul's legacy will live on in the Senate, as it lives on in our hearts and minds. In the name of Paul and Sheila Wellstone, I pledge to carry on their legacy throughout my time in the Senate.

Madam President, this amendment is acceptable on our side as well. We are ready to go forward at this time.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, we are able to accept this amendment on our side as well.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Bond in strongly opposing the Coburn amendment and the numerous other amendments he has filed with the same type of philosophy, as he calls it, in the Senate.

I join with my colleague from Missouri, the chairman of this committee. I, like him, go home every single weekend to Washington State, which is 2,500 miles away from the Nation's Capital. I, like the Senator from Missouri, do not believe the bureaucrats sitting in Washington, DC, know what is happening on the ground in my home State 2,500 miles away from here. I am out there. I am out in every community, talking to people, listening to them, knowing what their concerns are, knowing what they are developing within their own communities, within their own cities, within their own capabilities, to help stimulate the economy and to do good things. It is my job to be their partner in that. I tell them that all the time. You get it going on the ground here, you develop the projects, you get the consensus within your own communities, and I will do what I can to get some small part of help from the Federal Government. That is how I, like most Senators in the Senate, am sent projects.

Last year, I was in Yakima Valley and talked to our farmers out there. This is a remote community. They are struggling with putting together a clinic. I talked to them. They developed the ideas at the local level and put together a building, a job training center, to assist our State's large farmworker community to help further their education and acquire some critical new skills. This was an important project for them. I was able to come back here and partner with $500,000 from the Federal Government to help stimulate that project to make sure it was going to succeed.

Another time, I was traveling in King County, talking to community leaders there who were working to fund a Greenbridge community center in the heart of an exciting Hope VI project that is bringing affordable housing and economic development to one of the poorest communities in King County. I came back here. It is my job to represent a State that is thousands of miles away from here, and I flew back and said I will do my part to help with this important project. And we were able to get $500,000.

Today, the Senator from Oklahoma has targeted another project that I sat down and discussed with local community leaders. I didn't come up with this. This came from the heart of my local community because they are working very hard in an urban core in the city of Seattle to turn a brownfield into a hub of activity. It is a project

that is stimulating jobs and investments. That is exactly what this EDI program is intended to do. We didn't need to cut investments to clean up brownfields to produce jobs. We need more projects like this.

If the Senator from Oklahoma wants to look for a culprit for the fiscal situation in this country, he should look into the billions and billions of dollars in tax cuts that have been granted to multimillionaires in this country, and he should look at additional tax cuts his party wants to implement in future years if he wants to find incredible savings.

To take apart a Senator's projects, who worked very hard, as I have and as the Senator from Missouri has, the Senator from Rhode Island, the Senator from Mississippi, and the Senator from Nebraska have done with their projects and numerous other Senators who have gone home like we have, listened to the leadership in their communities, heard their projects, filtered through them as we have had to because we do not have a lot of money in these accounts, and said these are the ones we will partner with you at the Federal level and put into this bill.

The Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, under the leadership of my capable colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, has been respectful and responsive to requests of Senators who have come up with projects. Contrary to the representation that some Members have made in the Senate, these EDI projects we are talking about are not the centerpiece of our efforts of community development in this bill. In fact, they are far from it. The funding for these EDI projects that the Senator from Oklahoma is targeting amounts to less than 8 percent of the overall funding we provide in this bill for HUD's community development fund.

In fact, my colleagues should remember that President Bush's budget looked to take the Community Development Block Grant Program out of this bill and fund it in the Department of Commerce while cutting its funding by more than a third. Senator Bond and I fought to continue the funding for the CDBG Program in our bill because we all heard from our local communities how important these funds were for development across the country.

The Senator from Oklahoma now comes to the Senate with a series of amendments targeting a few States to pick out individually named projects and eliminate those projects' funding. We are not going to go down that road. There are criteria that pertain to the funding for the project that I have, for the project the Senator from Oklahoma has, the project from Nebraska, the project from Missouri, the project from Mississippi, the project from Rhode Island, and the other projects on which he has amendments. There are criteria for these. They are not random. These funds have to be used for capital expenses rather than operating costs. None of the funds are dedicated to for-profit entities. The vast majority are dedicated to projects in underprivileged communities.

I don't care if it is my project, Senator Bond's project, Senator Nelson's project, Senator Chafee's project, or the other projects that the Senator from Oklahoma has randomly picked to target, the Senators that have EDI projects in this bill--and that, by the way, is almost every Senator in this Senate--are going to have to stand together. We are not going to watch the Senator pick out one project and make it into a whipping boy.

Now, it is true that Senator Bond and I allow Senators to allocate EDI funds to those projects in their States that they think make best use of the funds. We do not make any apology for that practice.

As the Senator from Missouri has said--which I agree with, I do not think the bureaucrats at the Department of Housing and Urban Development know better than I do--a Senator from a State thousands of miles away from here, who goes home every single weekend and is on the ground talking to community leaders in every county and every city in my State, and hearing from them what they think is important.

We do not choose these projects randomly sitting on high from back here. We go out and talk to our community leaders. They tell us this project, the one the Senator has decided to target, is a project, as I said, that is turning a brownfield into a hub of an urban center, into a center of activity, and it is critical for their economic development.

When the community leaders come together, and they have a consensus for it, and they have built the funding for it in the State, it is my job, I believe, to represent my State, which is thousands of miles away from here, and to come back and be an advocate for them.

I don't know that the bureaucrats at the Department of Housing and Urban Development ever take the opportunity to go out and sit on the ground in my State. It is my job to do that. I take it seriously. And I am happy to come back here and fight for them, such as most of the other Senators have done who have given us EDI projects in this bill this year--next year or the following year.

There is not a lot of money in these accounts. We allocate them correctly. I sat across the table from the Senator from Missouri in the Budget Committee for many years, and I can vouch for him that he is not someone who spends money randomly. He and I have disagreed, in fact, on budgets and spending over the years, but I do know that he takes his job seriously, to make sure we spend the taxpayers' dollars wisely. He votes, every time, for a budget where most of the time I say I am willing to spend more than he does. He cuts those budgets. And we have done so this year.

It is a very tight budget year. Our committee is operating within the confines of that budget. I commend my colleague from Missouri for doing so because I know how many requests we got for funding within this bill. It was a tough year. I watched him work his way through a bill, telling Members of the Senate that he could not fund all their projects. But he has moved this bill forward under the confines of that budget.

It is our job to make sure that every Senator has the ability we have to go home to their States, listen to their community leaders, and then be their partner in the Senate for this small amount of EDI funding that is available. These projects in this bill have to fall under the criteria that the EDI funds do so, and we make sure they do.

I hope the Senate will not go down the road of cherry-picking individual projects that Senators have come to us and have championed on behalf of their constituents who do not live here in Washington, DC. I hope we do not go down the road deciding we know better than home State Senators about the merits of the projects they bring to us.

As the old saying goes: What is good for the goose is good for the gander. And I tell my colleagues, if we start cutting funding for individual projects, your project may be next.

So, Mr. President, when Members come down to the floor to vote on this amendment, they need to know if they support stripping out this project, Senator Bond and I are likely to be taking a long, serious look at their projects to determine whether they should be preserved during our upcoming conference negotiations.

We must not and we will not go down the road of picking on one Senator or another on the floor of the Senate. I urge a no vote on this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2174

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2146, as Modified

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2105, 2106, 2108, as Modified, and 2120 En Bloc

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2175 and 2176 En Bloc

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2177 and 2178 En Bloc

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2179

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2180

Mr. President, this amendment makes small revisions to the provision in the bill mandating the continued operation of the emergency landing field at Midway Island Atoll in the Pacific.

The bill before us, for the third consecutive year, requires a cost- sharing agreement between the appropriate Federal agencies for the continued operation of this critical airfield.

This amendment would clarify that among the costs that must be covered by the Federal agencies are the necessary capital costs for the replacement of the aged fuel farm on the island.

I am not aware of any objection on either side. I ask for adoption of the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

And Bingaman.

Mr. President, we are working our way quickly toward final passage. I just wanted to take a minute and thank our chairman, Senator Bond, from Missouri, who has done a remarkable job with a very complex bill that has numerous agencies with it, the first time the Senate has considered a bill with Transportation and HUD and Judiciary. I wish to compliment him and his staff and thank all of our staffs for the tremendous work they did in moving this bill forward.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator bringing this issue to our attention and she can be sure that her concerns will be given every consideration in conference.

I agree with the distinguished Senator from Missouri and request that the needs of the U.S. Court for the District of New Mexico be considered by the Administrative Office of the Courts. I have also been made aware of these concerns earlier in the year by the other Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I wanted to take a minute, as we finish this bill, to again thank my colleague from Missouri for his tremendous work on this bill. I know he has been under personal duress today and had a late night last night, but his team won despite what it appears to be. I think he has done a tremendous job and I wish to thank him.

I also wish to thank all of the majority staff, John Kamarck Paul Doerrer, Cheh Kim, Lula Edwards, Josh Manley, and Matt McCardle for their help in working with us for many months along the way, and also our minority staff, Peter Rogoff, Kate Hallahan, Diana Hamilton, Bill Simpson, Meaghan McCarthy, as well as my personal staff, especially Casey Sixkiller. I also want to thank all of the floor staff who have been diligent in working with us as we have moved this bill through and again thanks to my colleague from Missouri for his tremendous work on this bill.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman for offering this amendment. The Kelo v. New London decision by the Supreme Court came as a great shock to many. The amendment being offered seeks to impose some meaningful limitations on the potential use of eminent domain with the funds provided in this act. I emphasize this provision is limited to the funds in this act and does not seek to overturn the Kelo decision. It merely ensures that funds appropriated for 2006 for the Department of Transportation and Housing are not to use eminent domain for projects that primarily benefit private interests.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the chairman of the committee for offering this critical amendment at this time.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by my friend from North Dakota. He has made an excellent case for this amendment. I want to note that I am a cosponsor of bipartisan legislation introduced earlier this year that would allow this travel between the United States and Cuba.

Current policy with regard to Cuba, as enforced by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, permits travel to Cuba today only with permission in the form of a license from the Treasury office for certain reasons such as visits to relatives or journalism or religious or humanitarian purposes. According to Treasury documents, between 1996 and 2003, about a third of Cuba travel cases opened for investigation were referred for civil penalty enforcement action.

As the Senator from North Dakota said, these typical penalty assessments for unauthorized travel range from $3,000 to $7,500. That is preposterous. For the last 40 years, the United States has maintained this isolationist position toward Cuba, and the current regime has been there the entire time. I believe, as the Senator from North Dakota so eloquently stated, that permitting travel to Cuba will help demonstrate to Cuba's citizens what a democracy is all about.

I tell my colleague that I had a young group of baseball players who went through the entire rigmarole as a young team to go to Cuba a number of years back. They had to go through an entire process. It was amazing what they had to go through to go down and participate in a Little League team playoff with a number of players from Cuba. I had them come back and visit with me when they returned. They wanted to thank me for helping them get through this process. I sat there and listened to them as they told me that they actually lost every single game. Finally, it was so lopsided that the Cuban young boys and they got together and decided, this is ridiculous. We are just losing. So they intermixed their teams, half Cuban and half American, and finished the playoffs that way. What a great thing for democracy. These young people showed to all of us exactly what we want happening in Cuba, that we can sit down, a group of 12-year-old boys, and learn how to get along and to be able to promote some real important values.

I am happy to yield.

The Senator is absolutely correct. This was about 10 years ago. Since that time, if these young kids were to come today to my office to ask for help, they would not be able to go and do it. What a way to dampen the enthusiasm of young boys in our country. It is telling them that democracy is not about conversations and learning and education and participation. I think that is a negative message. I appreciate the Senator's offering the amendment. I know the administration has issued a veto threat on this bill if this provision is allowed to be included. I say that veto threats have been made on other provisions in this bill. I don't see any reason why the Senate should not go on record and state its view. It is time to lift the travel restrictions on Cuba for all the reasons the Senator from North Dakota has outlined today. I hope we will

get to a vote and be able to move forward on this legislation.

I yield the floor.

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.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Dorgan and Wyden be added as cosponsors to this amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2101, as Modified

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2139

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2072, as Modified

Mr. President, this amendment is an important step for both of our States. I appreciate the Senator from Missouri bringing it forward tonight.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

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

This amendment has been cleared on both sides. It simply requires the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness to make sure that all of the appropriate agencies take into consideration the homeless assistance programs. This is especially important for kids today who are homeless, to make sure their rights are protected.

I ask for its immediate consideration.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and urge all of our colleagues to bring their amendments to the floor. As I stated last night, the chairman of the subcommittee was in a good mood. We had a great baseball game last night, from his viewpoint, for all of us who stayed up to watch the final home run. I think he is amenable to talking to anyone who would like to bring their amendments today. I would suggest our colleagues get that done. I think we all want to finish this bill, most importantly because we need to go to conference on this bill. We are again operating under a continuing resolution. There are many serious issues affecting our investment in housing, our investment in the FAA, in transportation, highways, as well as many other issues that are within this bill. We have a lot of work ahead of us in terms of getting this to conference and working out our differences with the House.

I urge my colleagues to bring their amendments to the floor. We are going to be talking about a time agreement fairly soon. If Members want their issues addressed, they need to bring them to the floor.

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

Mr. President, we are in agreement on this amendment. It simply will clarify for the purposes of distributing funding from Section 8 housing assistance. Public housing authorities would not be penalized for shelving vouchers temporarily to develop a longer term project. This is a fairness issue, and we are all in agreement. I urge its passage.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, this amendment would extend to the judicial branch certain procurement authorities that are parallel with the authorities that have already been granted to the executive branch and would allow the judiciary to achieve certain cost efficiencies that I think we all want.

This amendment has been cleared by the Judiciary Committee with the sunset provision that limits the authority to 5 years.

I encourage an aye vote from all of our colleagues.

I thank the Chair.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate is now considering the Transportation-Treasury bill, formally known as H.R. 3058. It is the appropriations bill for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for fiscal year 2006.

This bill covers areas such as infrastructure, public housing, and the judiciary that are critical to millions of American families and to keeping our economy strong. For our country to reach its full potential, we need to invest in the priorities that are in this bill. Today, many people do not feel very secure about the future. They feel as though they are one slip away from losing their job, or they are worried about the fact that they will not be able to retire or to pay for a trip to the doctor if their child gets sick.

To make America strong again, we need to invest at home. We need to invest in our communities, in our schools, in our people, and in our infrastructure. That is what the bill now before us does.

In the last few months, we have seen how important it is to have a strong and reliable infrastructure. Tonight I want to offer my colleagues an overview of what this bill funds and some of the most important investments, but first I want to note that several things have changed since last year.

As my colleagues know, our Senate subcommittee has changed significantly. Last year, three separate appropriations subcommittees were responsible for funding the agencies that are now in this bill. Even so, the Senate did not have the opportunity to debate and amend any of the appropriations bills that funded these agencies. Since then, the Appropriations Committee has been restructured. As a result, this bill was crafted by one new and very much larger committee. We now have 19 members. Only the Defense Subcommittee is as large.

Fortunately for all of us, we have Senator Bond as our very able chairman. Senator Bond has demonstrated his skill and fair-mindedness time and again during his leadership of the former VA Subcommittee. This year, he continues to demonstrate his leadership, and the proof is in this bill. It was reported unanimously by both the subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee back in July.

In addition to the changes we witnessed in the last year, we have seen dramatic changes in the 12 weeks since we marked up this bill. First and foremost has been the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. More than 1 million people were forced to evacuate the region, including low-income citizens who remain eligible for housing assistance from HUD. Today, because of the devastation, even more people are eligible for Federal housing assistance.

Other Federal agencies that are funded in this bill have responded to the hurricanes. In the Department of Transportation, the Maritime Administration has deployed ships from the Ready Reserve fleet to the gulf to assist in recovery efforts. DOT personnel have also been involved in the effort to obtain trucks and buses to move personnel and equipment. Amtrak assisted in the evacuation of storm victims from both New Orleans and Houston. The hurricanes showed us that we need workable plans to evacuate large numbers of low-income residents who depend on public transit. I truly hope the Department of Transportation and FEMA are hard at work on those plans.

In the judiciary, Hurricane Katrina has required the emergency relocation of 36 Federal judges and more than 400 staff. The New Orleans office of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has been abandoned, as have the Federal District and Bankruptcy Courts for Eastern Louisiana and Southern Mississippi.

Another change since we marked up this bill in July concerns energy prices. Back in late July, the average price per gallon of regular gasoline was $2.27. Today it is more than 25 percent higher. Gas costs more than $3 a gallon in many parts of our country. High gas prices are hurting our families, our businesses, and our communities. This price spike is already causing revenues to our Federal and State transportation trust funds to diminish. That could have a serious impact on the ability of our States to finance their highest priority road projects.

The recent spike in fuel prices has also further undermined the financial condition of the Nation's airlines. Since we first marked up this bill, another two major U.S. carriers and one regional carrier have entered bankruptcy. That threatens the long-term availability of air service to the communities across the country and to tens of thousands of jobs.

Also, since we first marked up this appropriations bill, we passed the authorization bill and made significant progress on Amtrak reform. First, just prior to the August recess, thanks again to the very able work of Chairman Bond, the Congress passed the conference report on the surface transportation bill, now known as SAFETEA-LU. This law will now guide the direction of our Federal highway, transit, and highway safety programs for the next 5 years.

Secondly, following the markup of this bill, the Senate Commerce Committee reported a comprehensive Amtrak reform bill. That bill has yet to come before the Senate, but it is important legislation that must inform this subcommittee's deliberations going forward.

So as I said earlier, we have seen some dramatic and in some cases tragic changes since the Appropriations Committee first reported this bill. But even with those changes, this bill deserves the strong bipartisan support of the Senate.

This bill totals more than $141.4 billion. That is more than $11.6 billion over the President's request. I think the best feature of this bill is that it rejects many of the painful and unwise cuts that were proposed in the President's budget. Whether it is funding to continue rail service in the country or building new runways to relieve congestion at our airports, to construct new housing for low-income seniors and for our disabled; whether it is to invest in community development or provide needed assistance to taxpayers or aggressively enforce our drug laws, this bill rejects the President's painful cuts. Instead, our bill invests the funds to make our world safer and advance the needs of our infrastructure and our people.

I thank Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd for providing our subcommittee with the necessary allocation so we could make these critical investments. Chairman Bond also deserves a great deal of credit for ensuring that even with so many new programs now under our jurisdiction, every program was thoroughly reviewed and considered.

I thank Chairman Bond for treating me as a full partner in this endeavor. His door has always been open to me. While we do not see eye to eye on every funding level and every provision in the bill, I think the bill we are considering is truly an effort at bipartisan consensus, and I thank the chairman for that.

I would like to review some of the priorities in this bill, starting with aviation. This bill rejects the administration's proposal to slash funding for our Nation's airports. It also preserves funding for the essential Air Service Program so that rural communities across the country will continue to receive air service.

I am also pleased that the bill attempts to boost hiring of our air safety inspectors at the FAA. Last year this committee fully funded the President's request for safety inspectors. What happened? The FAA downsized that office by more than 300 people. With the Nation's airlines in turmoil and all the

airlines seeking to cut costs, this is not the time to cut our safety inspector workforce as I described in detail on the Senate floor just a few weeks ago.

For Amtrak, our bill includes $1.45 billion. That is a 20-percent increase over the current year. Now, the DOT inspector general testified that Amtrak would require between $1.4 billion and $1.5 billion next year to maintain all of its current routes and services. This funding recommendation falls right in the middle of that range. This bill also recommends some reforms for Amtrak in the interest of helping Amtrak cut costs. The President's budget asks that we throw Amtrak into bankruptcy and leave 22 million Americans stranded on the platform. This bill categorically rejects that approach and preserves all current rail routes so a meaningful debate on reform can continue without the threat of a crisis.

Funding for the judiciary is up 6.6 percent. That is slightly higher than the level that was passed by the House of Representatives, and I am confident that this funding level will enable the judiciary to continue its important work without the threat of staff layoffs.

Within the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the President proposed to move the Community Development Block Grant Program over to the Department of Commerce and cut its funding by more than a third. I am very pleased to say that we will continue to fund CDBG in this bill, and we limited the funding cut to just 8 percent.

Some of the more damaging cuts in the President's HUD budget include cuts to new construction for housing for the disabled and cuts to funding for housing funds for AIDS patients, and those have been rejected.

Within the Executive Office of the President, the White House proposed to cut funding for the drug law enforcement activities of the high intensity drug tracking areas by more than 50 percent. Our bill, however, rejects that cut entirely and fully funds the HIDTA Program.

Turning to Federal workers, this bill provides a 3.1-percent pay raise for all Federal employees. It is an identical adjustment for military and civilian workers.

I am also very pleased that Chairman Bond and Senator Mikulski reached a compromise on competitive sourcing. It will provide a level playing field when it comes to efforts by the Federal Government to contract out Federal jobs.

As I have outlined, this bill makes some critical investments in our transportation infrastructure, in our ability to house the poor and administer justice, and the pressing needs, of course, of our highways and airways and transit systems. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill so we can strengthen our local communities and our entire country.

I will repeat the words of my chairman, Senator Bond, and encourage my colleagues to bring their amendments to the Senate floor. The sooner we start these amendments, the sooner we can review them and perhaps get them adopted. One thing I do know is, as of right now, there is still hope that the St. Louis Cardinals are going to reverse course and win the National League Championship Series. I cannot guarantee to any of my colleagues that Chairman Bond is going to greet their amendments warmly, but I know he will greet them less warmly if the Cardinals are eliminated this evening, so I suggest to all my colleagues they bring their amendments to the floor as soon as possible so they can be considered and we can move forward on this bill.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the Senate is going to vote in a couple of minutes on an amendment Senator Bond and I offered that addresses fraud and abuse at HUD properties. These are technical changes that are needed to provide the HUD Office of Inspector General the tools they need to continue this effort.

The amendment clarifies that the Government can recover double damages from project owners, heirs, officers, and management companies that have violated their project agreements with HUD. These damages will apply even if the violators no longer have a mortgage or are doing business with HUD. The provision allows violations to basically be considered as a false claim. Large damage awards are a proven deterrent in minimizing fraud and abuse in these programs.

There is a backlog of enforcement actions awaiting this change, including nursing homes that have been skimming equity from properties that are covered with HUD insurance. We have to put a stop to these abuses. I encourage all colleagues, when this vote occurs in a few minutes, to support this amendment.

I yield the floor and 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.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge the Senate leadership to call up H.R. 3058, the Transportation, Treasury, HUD, and General Government appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006, once the Department of Defense appropriations bill is done.

We all want to make our country strong again. We all want to make our communities strong again. One way to do that is to invest in our transportation infrastructure, in public housing, and in the other priorities that are part of that important bill.

Every day we go without a Transportation-Treasury bill is a day that we fall short of making the investments we need to make to strengthen this country. We are not talking about our physical infrastructure, we are talking about our own safety. As I will show in a moment, the failure of the Senate to bring up the Transportation-Treasury bill could actually be threatening the safety of every American who flies on a commercial air carrier.

A floor debate on the Transportation-Treasury bill is long overdue. The House of Representatives passed this bill more than 3 months ago. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported this bill almost 2\1/2\ months ago. Today we are almost a full week into fiscal year 2006, and still the Senate has been denied an opportunity to consider and debate and pass this important bill. The Senate needs to debate and pass this bill so we can avoid the unruly and unfair process of funding the Government through another Omnibus appropriations bill. The Senate needs to debate and pass this bill so all of the Senators, not just those on the Appropriations Committee, can have an opportunity to consider and, if necessary, amend that bill. The Senate needs to debate and pass this bill so we can urgently address the critical needs of our transportation and public housing sectors, including the pressing need to protect the safety of all of our citizens.

Mr. President, 2002 was the most recent year in which the Transportation appropriations bill was sent to the President as a freestanding measure. I was chair of the subcommittee at that time. Ever since then, the funding for the agencies under the subcommittee's jurisdiction has been enacted as part of a series of unwieldy Omnibus appropriations bills. The process by which these bills were put together did not reflect well on the Senate. It did not reflect well on the Congress as a whole.

Last year's process was the worst of all. Last year, the Transportation, Treasury, and General Government appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005 was never even debated in the Senate. Once the appropriations bill was reported by the Appropriations committee, the bill languished for months before Congress went home for an election. Then, just before Thanksgiving, Congress reconvened and tried, in 3 days, to assemble a final conference report for dozens of major Federal agencies, even though the Senate had never even passed many of the appropriations bills that funded those agencies.

I think Members of all political stripes in both the House and in the Senate recognized how poorly the public and the Congress were served by that process. In January, everyone said we will not do that again. We heard it from the leadership of both the House and the Senate and from the new leadership of the House and the Senate appropriations committees. I am glad they said it back in January. But from where I sit as the ranking member of the Transportation-Treasury Subcommittee, it sure looks to me as though we are now heading toward another Omnibus appropriations bill.

The bottom line is this. The Transportation-Treasury bill has been sitting on this calendar, ready to be called up, for almost 2\1/2\ months. If we want to avoid another Omnibus appropriations bill, we need to call up and pass that bill as soon as we are done with this Defense bill.

This process of sending bills approved by the Appropriations Committee directly to conference without appropriate debate on the Senate floor is not just grossly unfair to Democratic Senators, it is grossly unfair to all of the 72 Senators who do not sit on the Appropriations Committee. The appropriations bill that Senator Bond and I are recommending to the Senate was approved unanimously by the Appropriations Committee back in mid-July. It proposes to spend over $137 billion.

These are not just tax dollars that were collected in Missouri or collected in Washington or collected in States represented by members of the Appropriations Committee, these are tax dollars that were collected from all Americans. Since that is true, every Senator should have the opportunity to debate this bill and pass judgment on our recommendations. Every Senator should be given an opportunity to amend that bill.

We need to avoid another Omnibus to ensure a fair process. There are also some very practical programmatic reasons why we must call up and, importantly, pass this Transportation-Treasury bill as soon as possible. Now the Government is functioning under a continuing resolution. Under the requirements of that resolution, programs that are funded in the Transportation-Treasury bill are all operating at either the lower of the funding levels passed by the House of Representatives back in June or at the level the program was funded in fiscal year 2005. Some observers have speculated we could be operating under this continuing resolution until Christmas.

It would take hours for me to list all the programs and national needs that will suffer if they are required to operate for any length of time under the funding restrictions of this continuing resolution. If we do not get agreement soon to debate the Transportation-Treasury bill, I may well take up a lot of the Senate floor time to explain each and every one of them.

But today I want to focus on one topic and that is the topic of aviation

safety and what our failure to move this Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill means for millions of Americans who travel by air in this country today. Over the last few years, our national aviation enterprise--our airlines, our airports, and the FAA--have been under an unprecedented amount of financial pressure. We now have no fewer than six airlines in bankruptcy. If jet fuel prices do not start declining soon, that number could grow even higher.

In the interests of cutting costs, airlines on which you and I travel have been cutting back on staff, have been renouncing their pension plans, and have been outsourcing an increasing percentage of their aircraft maintenance.

I know many other Senators, including myself, travel home almost every weekend, and we have all noticed the changes in the service the airlines offer. Staffing is leaner than ever and we have a lot of flight delays. Mechanical problems are on the rise. One important area of cost cutting has been the airlines' continuing efforts to contract out their aircraft maintenance activities to third parties, including, you all should know, overseas vendors known as foreign repair stations.

In the past, airlines maintained their planes with experienced veteran unionized mechanics. Today, they outsource more than 50 percent, more than half of their maintenance work, to independent operators. Airlines such as Northwest send some of their aircraft as far as Singapore and Hong Kong for heavy maintenance.

We have one major carrier, Jet Blue, that sends a large portion of their Airbus fleet to be maintained in El Salvador, Central America. That is where their planes are maintained.

America West Airlines, now merged with U.S. Airways, does the same thing.

Many of us watched in fear a few weeks ago when a Jet Blue A-320 was required to make an emergency landing at the Los Angeles International Airport. As we all watched on television, we saw its front landing gear facing sideways, at 90 degrees. That was not the first time the landing gear didn't engage correctly. In fact, it was not the 5th time, it was not even the 10th time, it was the 14th time that the FAA learned of the front landing gear of an A-320 aircraft not engaging correctly.

According to the FAA, these 14 dangerous and frightening mishaps have occurred as a result of 5 separate and distinct causes.

It is the job of the FAA inspectors to find out why these problems happen and to force the plane's manufacturer to fix that problem. We cannot afford to have an understaffed or an overwhelmed FAA safety office.

Our airlines are going through a period of dramatic and rapid change. That puts an extraordinary amount of stress on the aircraft inspection function of the Federal Aviation Administration.

We have received a disturbing series of reports from the DOT Inspector General, from the Government Accounting Office, and the National Transportation Safety Board citing deficiencies with the FAA's inspection effort.

In 2004, the NTSB found that deficient maintenance by an outside contractor and inadequate oversight by the airline and the FAA contributed to the 2003 crash of a commuter flight to Charlotte, NC. That crash killed 21 people.

The DOT Inspector General first identified serious deficiencies with the FAA's inspection efforts back in 2002. Just this past June, the IG reported that many of those deficiencies have still not been adequately addressed.

The IG found that the FAA focused too much attention on the airline's dwindling in-house maintenance function and not enough attention on the outsourced maintenance activities of their foreign contractors.

The IG found that the FAA inspectors were spending too much time inspecting maintenance facilities during the day, while a majority of the maintenance activities are actually conducted at night.

The IG found the FAA was doing an insufficient job of its surveillance of financially distressed or rapidly growing airlines. And the IG found the FAA was not able to meet its own standards for frequent inspections because it was short staffed.

In just the last few weeks, the FAA staffing shortage has become even more critical. As these airlines enter bankruptcy, the FAA is automatically required to step up its inspections of bankrupt carriers.

Today, the FAA must give heightened scrutiny to the six bankrupt carriers, as well as four other carriers that are in merger proceedings.

Following the liquidation of Eastern Airlines several years ago, a number of dramatic and horrifying revelations came out regarding the maintenance shortcuts that Eastern took in the interest of conserving cash in its waning days. The entire aviation community vowed that there would not ever be a repeat of the Eastern Airlines experience.

I would think with the external recommendations and the record that I have just cited, the FAA would now be rapidly hiring more inspectors to keep up with its growing and challenging workload. Unfortunately, over the course of the last year, the exact opposite has been the case.

Despite the fact that the Congress granted the FAA's inspections office every penny that was sought in the President's budget for fiscal year 2005, the office has been required to downsize by roughly 300 inspectors over the course of just this last year. That is right. As the requirements on our FAA inspectors to maintain safety in our skies has increased dramatically, the FAA has been downsizing its inspection force each and every month.

This unacceptable situation is one that Senator Bond and I pursued as part of our hearings with Secretary Mineta this year--and the House Appropriations Committee did the same. I am proud to say that on a bipartisan and bicameral basis, both the Transportation-Treasury bill passed by the House and the bill that has been reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee seeks to rectify the situation.

The House Appropriations Committee provided this office with an increase of $4 million over the President's budget request and committed those funds to the hiring of additional inspectors.

The Senate provided an increase of $8 million over the President's request, and we directed that funding be used to restore safety inspector staffing reductions that occurred during fiscal year 2005.

Personally, I still question whether we should be doing more in this area since we have now had two more airlines in bankruptcy since we marked up that appropriations bill.

But still, these actions on the part of the House and Senate committees indicate that Congress, on a bipartisan and a bicameral basis, is prepared to address this glaring safety vulnerability, even if the administration is not.

With that said, we can't make any progress in tackling this problem if we do not call up and pass the Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill.

Under the current continuing resolution, the agency can make no progress in restoring the necessary FAA inspectors to a level that could better protect us.

As I said, this was just one of several reasons it is imperative for the Senate leadership to call up the Transportation-Treasury bill.

I again implore the Senate Republican leadership to call up the Transportation-Treasury bill immediately upon the completion of this Defense appropriations bill.

We have to have the opportunity to debate this bill, not just for the fairness of our colleagues and to maintain the integrity of the Senate, but we must debate this bill and pass it so we can ensure the safety of our citizens.

VAWA Reauthorization

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about tbe Violence Against Women Act, which the Senate this week passed by unanimous consent.

For the last few months, we have been talking about reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, as it is better known.

Back in 1994, through this historic legislation, we created a national strategy for dealing with domestic violence, establishing a community-wide response. Since we took that historical step, VAWA has been a great success in coordinating victims' advocates, social service providers, and law enforcement

professionals to meet the immediate challenges of combating domestic violence. We can clearly see that VAWA has been tremendously effective.

But there is still work to be done to protect victims of domestic violence--particularly when it comes to helping victims break the cycle of violence. And that is what I am here to talk about today--breaking the cycle of violence.

Financial insecurity is a major factor in ongoing domestic violence.

Too often, victims who are not economically self sufficient are forced to choose between protecting themselves and their children on one hand, and keeping a roof over their head on the other hand. It is critical that we help guarantee the economic security of victims of domestic or sexual violence who cannot pay the rent without their abusive partner, or who have been forced to leave their job because of abuse. Without our help, economic dependency will continue to force these victims to stay in abusive relationships.

The purpose of the Violence Against Women Act is to reduce domestic violence. The reauthorization legislation addresses several new issues that will help prevent and reduce domestic violence. One such--way as I already mentioned--is a national health care strategy. But the legislation as introduced contained another important tool to helping reduce domestic violence--it contained provisions that would have allowed victims to take up to 10 days of unpaid leave per year to address domestic violence.

Over 40 percent of American workers get no paid time off. They can't use vacation time to address their abuse, and missing work puts them in danger of losing their job.

This provision would have allowed these victims, and many others, to take unpaid leave to get a protective order, see a doctor, or make a safety plan to address their abuse. But sadly, amidst opposition and complaints of jurisdictional issues, these provisions were stripped from the bill during consideration in the Judiciary Committee.

The legislation that was reported out of committee--which the Senate just passed by unanimous consent--does not contain any economic protections for victims.

I did not give up on these protections easily. After the leave provisions were dropped, I asked the managers of this bill to include another economic security provision, unemployment insurance. Specifically, I asked them to provide victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking with unemployment insurance if they have to leave their job or are fired because of abuse.

We know that a job is often the only way for victims to build up resources for themselves to eventually leave a violent relationship, but abuse and stalking can make it impossible for a victim to keep a job.

We know of cases where abusers will deliberately sabotage a victim's ability to work, placing harassing phone calls, cutting off their transportation, showing up at the workplace and threatening employees.

When a victim loses a job because of violence, that victim should have access to unemployment insurance compensation benefits.

Are you aware that a woman is eligible for unemployment benefits if she has to leave her job because her husband had to relocate? But in many States, if a woman has to leave her job because she is fleeing a dangerous situation, she cannot receive the same benefits. That is unacceptable.

Currently, 28 States plus the District of Columbia already provide some type of unemployment insurance assistance for victims of domestic violence. We can offer that same protection to victims in every State, and we have an obligation to do it. But, since this provision is not included in VAWA either, we need to do it here and now.

It is important to recognize that this violence goes far beyond the home, too often following victims into the workplace, where it doesn't just hurt victims--it hurts their employers, too.

In fact, from decreased workplace productivity to increased health insurance cost, the data shows that domestic violence is bad for business. It has real and painful costs on employers. So for those Members who want to weigh this measure against its economic merits, the facts are clear.

Providing the tools that will allow abused women to escape abusive relationships can help offset billions of dollars in costs that domestic violence imposes on businesses.

As many of my colleagues know, I have been working on the issue of economic security for victims for many years. I have spoken with victims and their advocates, and employers. In fact, just this past Tuesday in my State of Washington, I held a roundtable discussion to meet with stakeholders. I heard from an employer--and owner of a small business in Snohomish County--who talked about the importance of flexible schedules and leave policies that allow employees to address their abuse. He said that helping them address their situations helps his bottom line.

I also heard from someone who works at the employment security department, who said that the numbers do not suggest that women are abusing unemployment insurance. And I heard from a survivor, who shared her story and talked about the crucial importance of these economic protections.

These are the voices we must hear. And these are the stories we must learn from and let guide our work here in the Senate.

I am going to keep coming to the Senate as many times as it takes, and I will tell these stories until my colleagues realize this is an issue that needs to be addressed. We need to provide these victims with the economic tools to help escape their dangerous situation.

For a long time, violence against women was considered a private matter. That attitude hurt women. Today, stopping domestic violence is everyone's business. That is in large part due to the Violence Against Women Act which I was very proud to work on and help pass. For the first time, the Violence Against Women Act recognized domestic violence as a violent crime and a national public health crisis.

Economic protections are the next logical step in the progress we have been making in fighting domestic violence. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues have not realized the critical importance of providing these economic protections. I brought this issue up last year when the Senate was considering the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I tried to amend that bill with my Security and Financial Empowerment, SAFE, Act, which contains all the economic protections I have talked about today. I was told then it wasn't the right time to address preventing violence against women. My amendment was defeated on a party-line vote. I am here again talking about how the Senate is failing to address this issue and failing to help prevent domestic violence by overlooking these economic provisions.

I reiterate to my colleagues that I will continue to come to the Senate and talk about how critical this issue is in helping victims get out of abusive relationships. I will continue to introduce legislation and offer amendments providing economic protections to victims. I will continue to ask whether the Senators in this Chamber are serious about talking about the next crucial step to help victims of abuse. I urge the conferees on the Violence Against Women Act to send the powerful message to victims that they understand how important these economic protections are by including them in the conference report on VAWA.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to protect low-income Medicare beneficiaries from being penalized under the new Medicare Modernization Act. My legislation also gives all seniors and the disabled more time to make the right choice in selecting a drug plan.

My bill is called the Medicare HEALS Act, which stands for Help for Every beneficiary and Low Income Seniors. I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Cantwell in introducing this new bill.

My goal is to protect very low-income seniors who today are covered by both Medicare and Medicaid. The new drug law will impose new co- payments and premiums on these vulnerable patients, while--at the same time--covering fewer prescription drugs.

Worst of all, the law prohibits States from providing additional coverage, known as wrap-around coverage, to seniors, the disabled and low-income beneficiaries. I believe seniors deserve better. I believe low income working families deserve better, and that's why I've written this bill.

The new drug law will force painful changes on low income patients, and my bill will help protect our most vulnerable from the negative impacts of the drug law.

Let's start by looking at how low-income beneficiaries are covered today versus how they will be covered under the new law. Today, very low income seniors are eligible for coverage under both state Medicaid programs and the Federal Medicare program, so they are often referred to as ``dual eligibles.''

Today, their prescription drugs are covered by State Medicaid programs, and they are a good deal. For many seniors and the disabled, State Medicaid drug coverage involves limited co-payments, no premiums, and coverage for a broad range of medically-necessary drugs.

Once the new Medicare drug program is implemented, these vulnerable patients will lose their State Medicaid coverage. They will be shifted into the Federal Medicare program, which will impose higher co- payments, new premiums and fewer covered drugs. It's a bad deal for low-income seniors and to make matters worse, it's incredibly complicated to figure out which private drug plan meets their needs.

1 am concerned that these individuals will be unable to afford co- payments or tiered co-payments that will be part of many MMA plans.

I am concerned that these individuals will also be denied the most medically-appropriate treatments due to restrictions imposed by the plans or additional financial burdens that plans will use to drive down drug utilization costs.

In addition, I am not convinced that we have done enough to fully educate and prepare beneficiaries to the choices and implications of these choices that they face today.

Another problem with the Medicare drug law is that it will penalize anyone on Medicare who needs extra time to make a decision about which plan to choose or whether or not to join the program. For a new system that is as complex as this new drug law, it's unfair to force people to make a decision quickly and to penalize those who need extra time to make the right choice.

To solve these problems and to protect our most vulnerable, my legislation would repeal the prohibition included in MMA on the use of Medicaid funds to provide wrap around coverage for dually eligible.

While I still believe that additional delay is warranted in switching this population to private plans under Medicare, I do believe we need to ensure that States facing a huge backlash from this population can respond accordingly.

I have joined in support of legislation aimed at providing a 6-month transition period for dual eligibles to give these patients time to phase into these new plans, but I also think we must ensure that States have the ability to respond to lapses in coverage or financial barriers that will deny access to necessary and life saving drugs.

States would have the option of providing wrap-around coverage using both Federal and State Medicaid funds, as they do today.

My legislation would also deduct any State funds used to provide wrap-around coverage from the so-called clawback amount. As we know, the MMA legislation takes back much of the savings States will see by transferring these patients to Medicare. I do

not think it is fair to penalize States for trying to do the right thing.

Finally, my legislation would delay the late penalty enrollment from May 15, 2006 until January 1, 2008, for all beneficiaries. This will give all Medicare beneficiaries the time to fully evaluate the plans. The extension will provide beneficiaries with one full benefit year and the open enrollment period to determine if these plans offer them a good value or provide the kind of security we all expect from Medicare.

This extension is of particular importance to those seniors who may be eligible for assistance but have not yet applied. We know that full dual eligibles will be automatically enrolled in a plan if they fail to select one. However, those with incomes from 135 percent to 150 percent of the Federal poverty level could also qualify for assistance but will not be automatically enrolled.

Early estimates from the Social Security Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) indicate that a number of seniors have failed to even apply for eligibility determination. I have been told from CMS that 18 to 19 million beneficiaries were mailed information and an application this summer to begin the eligibility determination. So far, only 3 million have even applied.

A recent USA Today/Gallup Poll shows that only 37 percent of beneficiaries understand the program somewhat, but 61 percent do not. Fifty-four percent of beneficiaries do not even plan on joining the program. Many seniors have simply chosen not to even try and navigate the process. For some, there are more than 20 different plans with premiums nationwide, ranging from $1.87 to $100 and deductibles from $0 to $250. This does not even get into restricted formularies or other restrictions that may be imposed.

It is clear that all beneficiaries need more time. Extending the late penalty enrollment deadline of May 15, 2006 is the simplest step we can take to give seniors time to evaluate these plans and this new benefit. The late enrollment penalty of 1 percent each month is a huge financial hit that punishes those who may need the help the most.

In Washington State, we could see thousands of frail, vulnerable beneficiaries paying significantly more for life saving drugs or simply going without. There are an estimated 86,167 full dual eligibles and an additional 22,869 who receive some assistance from Medicaid. The intent of MMA and this new benefit was to expand access to affordable drug coverage; however, the unintended consequence could be the disruption of care for millions of low income beneficiaries nationwide.

It is my understanding that dual eligibles in Washington State will be automatically enrolled into 1 of 12 plans. There are 31 plans participating as Medicare Advantage or Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs). Within these plans, there are often several different benefit packages. Premiums range from $0 to $120; deductibles can range from $0 to $2500; and many will have tiered co-payment structures. None of these plans will cover all top 100 drugs used by seniors. Some plans provide only 77 of the top 100 drugs.

While these plans may offer far better benefits than many receive today, it will be difficult to make this determination. The range of choices; the restrictions; the variations in out-of-pocket and the belief by many that this is not a good benefit overall, will lead many seniors to simply walk away.

But, even if seniors decide to sit down and do the calculation and evaluate each plan or option, they face challenges in the reliability of the information.

CMS has partnered with a number of outstanding groups in Washington State who are working hard to get information and help to seniors so they can make informed choices. But the task is made much more difficult when CMS announces that materials already mailed to beneficiaries are incorrect.

My office received notice this week from CMS that the area specific 2006 version of the ``Medicare and You Handbook'' already mailed to beneficiaries contains a rather large error. The error occurs in the comparison charts listing the Medicare Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs). In the last column of the comparison table, entitled ``If I qualify for Extra Help, will my full premium be covered?''

For each plan listed, the column should say yes if the plan's premium is at or below the regional benchmark, and a beneficiary who qualifies for the low income subsidy would pay no premium for this plan.

The column should show no if the plan's premium is above the regional benchmark and a beneficiary who qualifies for the low income subsidy would pay the difference between the regional benchmark and the plan's premium.

Due to an error, this column lists yes for every plan. Even if one could figure out what the regional benchmark is and the difference in the premium, they are still getting bad information.

How can anyone determine the value of a plan or benefit when the initial information is wrong?

There are other examples of information being provided by CMS that is incorrect or inconsistent. I think this has happened in part because this administration is in a race against time to enroll, enroll, enroll. This kind of pressure will only lead to more and more confusion and distrust.

As we saw with the temporary discount drug card, seniors simply refused to participate. Even those who would have qualified for $600 did not bother to enroll. The largest enrollment was done by States and private plans for those who qualified for the subsidy, but far more simply did not bother. The choices were too complex, there were too many rules or restrictions, and there was no way for beneficiaries to measure the value of these cards.

My legislation does not address every problem and every coverage gap, but it is a small step to protect the most vulnerable. I urge my colleagues to join me in making these small but necessary corrections today before beneficiaries lose their coverage and lose access to affordable life saving drugs.

I know that this administration has resisted any efforts at fixing this program and has said the President would veto any legislation that delays implementation or changes the structure of the benefit. But, I am convinced we will be back making changes to this program over the next 2 years because seniors will demand action.

Maybe before all confidence in this program is gone and seniors are calling for repeal, the administration would look at small, humane fixes today, and that is the Medicare HEALS Act offers.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to protect low-income Medicare beneficiaries from being penalized under the new Medicare Modernization Act. My legislation also gives all seniors and the disabled more time to make the right choice in selecting a drug plan.

My bill is called the Medicare HEALS Act, which stands for Help for Every beneficiary and Low Income Seniors. I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Cantwell in introducing this new bill.

My goal is to protect very low-income seniors who today are covered by both Medicare and Medicaid. The new drug law will impose new co- payments and premiums on these vulnerable patients, while--at the same time--covering fewer prescription drugs.

Worst of all, the law prohibits States from providing additional coverage, known as wrap-around coverage, to seniors, the disabled and low-income beneficiaries. I believe seniors deserve better. I believe low income working families deserve better, and that's why I've written this bill.

The new drug law will force painful changes on low income patients, and my bill will help protect our most vulnerable from the negative impacts of the drug law.

Let's start by looking at how low-income beneficiaries are covered today versus how they will be covered under the new law. Today, very low income seniors are eligible for coverage under both state Medicaid programs and the Federal Medicare program, so they are often referred to as ``dual eligibles.''

Today, their prescription drugs are covered by State Medicaid programs, and they are a good deal. For many seniors and the disabled, State Medicaid drug coverage involves limited co-payments, no premiums, and coverage for a broad range of medically-necessary drugs.

Once the new Medicare drug program is implemented, these vulnerable patients will lose their State Medicaid coverage. They will be shifted into the Federal Medicare program, which will impose higher co- payments, new premiums and fewer covered drugs. It's a bad deal for low-income seniors and to make matters worse, it's incredibly complicated to figure out which private drug plan meets their needs.

1 am concerned that these individuals will be unable to afford co- payments or tiered co-payments that will be part of many MMA plans.

I am concerned that these individuals will also be denied the most medically-appropriate treatments due to restrictions imposed by the plans or additional financial burdens that plans will use to drive down drug utilization costs.

In addition, I am not convinced that we have done enough to fully educate and prepare beneficiaries to the choices and implications of these choices that they face today.

Another problem with the Medicare drug law is that it will penalize anyone on Medicare who needs extra time to make a decision about which plan to choose or whether or not to join the program. For a new system that is as complex as this new drug law, it's unfair to force people to make a decision quickly and to penalize those who need extra time to make the right choice.

To solve these problems and to protect our most vulnerable, my legislation would repeal the prohibition included in MMA on the use of Medicaid funds to provide wrap around coverage for dually eligible.

While I still believe that additional delay is warranted in switching this population to private plans under Medicare, I do believe we need to ensure that States facing a huge backlash from this population can respond accordingly.

I have joined in support of legislation aimed at providing a 6-month transition period for dual eligibles to give these patients time to phase into these new plans, but I also think we must ensure that States have the ability to respond to lapses in coverage or financial barriers that will deny access to necessary and life saving drugs.

States would have the option of providing wrap-around coverage using both Federal and State Medicaid funds, as they do today.

My legislation would also deduct any State funds used to provide wrap-around coverage from the so-called clawback amount. As we know, the MMA legislation takes back much of the savings States will see by transferring these patients to Medicare. I do

not think it is fair to penalize States for trying to do the right thing.

Finally, my legislation would delay the late penalty enrollment from May 15, 2006 until January 1, 2008, for all beneficiaries. This will give all Medicare beneficiaries the time to fully evaluate the plans. The extension will provide beneficiaries with one full benefit year and the open enrollment period to determine if these plans offer them a good value or provide the kind of security we all expect from Medicare.

This extension is of particular importance to those seniors who may be eligible for assistance but have not yet applied. We know that full dual eligibles will be automatically enrolled in a plan if they fail to select one. However, those with incomes from 135 percent to 150 percent of the Federal poverty level could also qualify for assistance but will not be automatically enrolled.

Early estimates from the Social Security Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) indicate that a number of seniors have failed to even apply for eligibility determination. I have been told from CMS that 18 to 19 million beneficiaries were mailed information and an application this summer to begin the eligibility determination. So far, only 3 million have even applied.

A recent USA Today/Gallup Poll shows that only 37 percent of beneficiaries understand the program somewhat, but 61 percent do not. Fifty-four percent of beneficiaries do not even plan on joining the program. Many seniors have simply chosen not to even try and navigate the process. For some, there are more than 20 different plans with premiums nationwide, ranging from $1.87 to $100 and deductibles from $0 to $250. This does not even get into restricted formularies or other restrictions that may be imposed.

It is clear that all beneficiaries need more time. Extending the late penalty enrollment deadline of May 15, 2006 is the simplest step we can take to give seniors time to evaluate these plans and this new benefit. The late enrollment penalty of 1 percent each month is a huge financial hit that punishes those who may need the help the most.

In Washington State, we could see thousands of frail, vulnerable beneficiaries paying significantly more for life saving drugs or simply going without. There are an estimated 86,167 full dual eligibles and an additional 22,869 who receive some assistance from Medicaid. The intent of MMA and this new benefit was to expand access to affordable drug coverage; however, the unintended consequence could be the disruption of care for millions of low income beneficiaries nationwide.

It is my understanding that dual eligibles in Washington State will be automatically enrolled into 1 of 12 plans. There are 31 plans participating as Medicare Advantage or Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs). Within these plans, there are often several different benefit packages. Premiums range from $0 to $120; deductibles can range from $0 to $2500; and many will have tiered co-payment structures. None of these plans will cover all top 100 drugs used by seniors. Some plans provide only 77 of the top 100 drugs.

While these plans may offer far better benefits than many receive today, it will be difficult to make this determination. The range of choices; the restrictions; the variations in out-of-pocket and the belief by many that this is not a good benefit overall, will lead many seniors to simply walk away.

But, even if seniors decide to sit down and do the calculation and evaluate each plan or option, they face challenges in the reliability of the information.

CMS has partnered with a number of outstanding groups in Washington State who are working hard to get information and help to seniors so they can make informed choices. But the task is made much more difficult when CMS announces that materials already mailed to beneficiaries are incorrect.

My office received notice this week from CMS that the area specific 2006 version of the ``Medicare and You Handbook'' already mailed to beneficiaries contains a rather large error. The error occurs in the comparison charts listing the Medicare Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs). In the last column of the comparison table, entitled ``If I qualify for Extra Help, will my full premium be covered?''

For each plan listed, the column should say yes if the plan's premium is at or below the regional benchmark, and a beneficiary who qualifies for the low income subsidy would pay no premium for this plan.

The column should show no if the plan's premium is above the regional benchmark and a beneficiary who qualifies for the low income subsidy would pay the difference between the regional benchmark and the plan's premium.

Due to an error, this column lists yes for every plan. Even if one could figure out what the regional benchmark is and the difference in the premium, they are still getting bad information.

How can anyone determine the value of a plan or benefit when the initial information is wrong?

There are other examples of information being provided by CMS that is incorrect or inconsistent. I think this has happened in part because this administration is in a race against time to enroll, enroll, enroll. This kind of pressure will only lead to more and more confusion and distrust.

As we saw with the temporary discount drug card, seniors simply refused to participate. Even those who would have qualified for $600 did not bother to enroll. The largest enrollment was done by States and private plans for those who qualified for the subsidy, but far more simply did not bother. The choices were too complex, there were too many rules or restrictions, and there was no way for beneficiaries to measure the value of these cards.

My legislation does not address every problem and every coverage gap, but it is a small step to protect the most vulnerable. I urge my colleagues to join me in making these small but necessary corrections today before beneficiaries lose their coverage and lose access to affordable life saving drugs.

I know that this administration has resisted any efforts at fixing this program and has said the President would veto any legislation that delays implementation or changes the structure of the benefit. But, I am convinced we will be back making changes to this program over the next 2 years because seniors will demand action.

Maybe before all confidence in this program is gone and seniors are calling for repeal, the administration would look at small, humane fixes today, and that is the Medicare HEALS Act offers.