Medicare Drug Bill Tied to Abramoff

[Guest guest]

S

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:35:59 -0800 (PST)

Medicare Drug Bill Tied to Abramoff

 

 

 

 

Medicare Drug Bill Tied to Abramoff

 

t r u t h o u t | Letter

 

Wednesday 25 January 2006

 

Democratic leaders call medicare drug legislation the

product of a " corrupt legislative process, " seek

investigation into role of scandal-tainted lobbying

group.

 

Washington, D.C. - In a letter to Speaker Hastert,

Democratic Leader Pelosi, Democratic Whip Hoyer, and

Ranking Member Waxman ask for a congressional

investigation into the role played by the Alexander

Strategy Group, a lobbying firm closely linked to Tom

DeLay and Jack Abramoff, in the passage of the

Medicare Prescription Drug Act and the drafting of the

budget reconciliation bill currently before the

Congress. The text of the letter follows:.

 

January 25, 2006

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

 

Dear Mr. Speaker:

 

We are writing to ask you to open an investigation

into the role that the Alexander Strategy Group, a

lobbying firm closely linked to Tom DeLay and Jack

Abramoff, played in crafting the Medicare Prescription

Drug Act of 2003 and the budget reconciliation bill

currently pending before Congress.

 

The Medicare Prescription Drug Act, which has

caused so much confusion and havoc since January 1,

was a product of a corrupt legislative process. When

the bill passed, we knew that Democratic members had

been denied opportunities to offer amendments and that

the vote had been held open for hours in the dead of

night to twist arms. Afterwards, we learned that

crucial cost estimates were illegally withheld from

Democratic members; that the key Administration

official responsible for writing the bill was

simultaneously negotiating a high-paying job

representing drug and insurance companies; and that

the Republican chairman responsible for steering the

legislation through Congress subsequently accepted a

lucrative job in the pharmaceutical industry. We

further learned about a Republican member who had

alleged that a bribe had been offered him on the House

floor.

 

Recently, with the indictments of Tom DeLay and

Jack Abramoff, new questions have arisen about the

role of the Alexander Strategy Group in this dishonest

process. We know from lobby disclosure forms that the

largest single client of the Alexander Strategy Group

was the pharmaceutical industry, which paid the small

firm over $2.5 million, including nearly $1 million in

2003 when the prescription drug law was being written.

We also know from these records that the primary

lobbyist for the drug industry at Alexander Strategy

Group was Tony Rudy, who previously worked for both

Mr. DeLay and Mr. Abramoff and who is identified as

" Staffer A " in Mr. Abramoff's indictment. And we know

from multiple accounts in the news media that the

Alexander Strategy Group has been deeply implicated in

the scandals now sweeping through Washington.

 

These facts, taken together, provide more than a

sufficient basis for further investigation. We

therefore ask you to direct a congressional committee

of jurisdiction to examine the process that produced

the Medicare Prescription Drug Act, with a special

focus on the role of the Alexander Strategy Group.

 

The Medicare Prescription Drug Act symbolizes all

that has gone wrong in Congress. The bill's monstrous

complexity frustrates nearly everyone, and its high

drug prices enrich the pharmaceutical industry at the

expense of seniors and taxpayers. The primary

beneficiaries of the legislation have become the

special interests that gave millions to Republicans in

Congress, not the millions of seniors and persons with

disabilities that the legislation was supposed to

help. We have an obligation to the public - and

especially to the seniors of America - to find out how

the legislative process went astray and to hold those

responsible to account.

 

We also urge you to extend this investigation to

examine the role of the Alexander Strategy Group in

the pharmaceutical provisions of the pending budget

reconciliation legislation and to delay the final vote

on the reconciliation bill until this investigation is

complete.

 

The Medicare Prescription Drug Act of 2003

 

The Medicare Prescription Drug Act, which went

into effect on January 1, is a product of the culture

of corruption that has infected Washington. Over a

year ago, senior Democrats in the House and the Senate

asked you and Senate Majority Leader Frist to

investigate some of the serious irregularities in the

process. [1] You both failed to respond, and there has

been no official investigation into the how the bill

was enacted. Even so, there is abundant evidence that

the process was dishonest and deeply flawed.

 

At this point, we know:

 

Key Cost Estimates Were Withheld from Democrats.

During the legislative debate, President Bush,

Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson,

and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)

Administrator Tom Scully repeatedly assured Congress

and the public that the Medicare drug benefit would

not cost more than $400 billion over ten years. [2] In

fact, the Medicare actuary, Richard Foster, was

correctly predicting that the legislation would cost

far more, perhaps as much as $600 billion. [3] Mr.

Scully threatened Mr. Foster with the loss of his job

if he shared this information with congressional

Democrats. [4] According to the Government

Accountability Office, this action and the withholding

of the cost estimates violated multiple federal laws.

[5]

 

 

Democrats Were Denied Opportunities to Offer

Amendments. On June 26, 2003, the House passed H. Res.

299, the rule for consideration of H.R. 1, the

Medicare Prescription Drug Act. In this rule,

Democrats were allowed to introduce only one

amendment, an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

[6] No other amendments were permitted, effectively

denying Democratic members the opportunity to address

the deficiencies in the bill.

 

 

The Vote Was Held Open for Three Hours in the Dead of

Night. H.R. 1 was brought before the House for final

passage at 3 a.m. on Saturday, November 22, 2003.

Instead of the 15 minutes usually reserved for roll

call votes, the House Republican leadership held open

the vote for an unprecedented three hours while

pressuring Republican members to change their votes.

[7] During the vote, the Republican leadership

abandoned the traditions of the House by permitting a

member of the President's cabinet, HHS Secretary

Thompson, to be present on the floor to persuade

members. [8]

 

 

The Lead Administration Negotiator Was Simultaneously

Pursuing Job Representing Drug and Insurance

Companies. During the time the Medicare bill was being

drafted and considered, the Bush Administration's lead

negotiator, CMS Administrator Tom Scully, was

negotiating possible jobs representing the

pharmaceutical and insurance industries. [9] These

negotiations were sanctioned by the Administration,

which granted Mr. Scully a waiver from the normal

ethics rules. [10] After the legislation was signed

into law, Mr. Scully left CMS to take a job at Alston

& Bird, a firm that represents multiple pharmaceutical

companies, where he registered as a lobbyist for these

companies. [11]

 

 

Key Republican Chairmen Accepted Lucrative Jobs with

the Pharmaceutical Industry. Two key Republican

chairmen also accepted jobs representing the

pharmaceutical industry after passage of the Medicare

Prescription Drug Act. Former Rep. Billy Tauzin, who

was the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce

Committee and the lead House sponsor of the bill, left

Congress to become the president of the Pharmaceutical

Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the

drug industry's biggest trade group. [12] Former Rep.

James Greenwood, who was the Chairman of the House

Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations

Subcommittee, left Congress to become the president

the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the trade

association of the biotechnology industry. [13]

 

 

A Republican Member Said He Was Offered a Bribe on the

House Floor. Former Rep. Nick Smith alleged that

during the floor vote, former Majority Leader Tom

DeLay offered him a bribe in return for his vote on

the bill. According to Mr. Smith, Mr. DeLay offered

campaign support for Mr. Smith's son, who planned to

run for Rep. Smith's seat upon his retirement. [14]

Mr. DeLay was later admonished by the Ethics Committee

for his role in this incident. [15]

 

The final bill reflects this deplorable breakdown

in the legislative process. The extraordinary

complexity of the legislation is a direct result of

political decisions made by Republicans in Congress.

[16] These choices benefit the drug and insurance

industries, but they are profoundly disruptive for

seniors. Moreover, because the Republican-controlled

Congress rejected Democratic proposals to allow

Medicare to negotiate for low drug prices, the

legislation has produced exceptionally high

pharmaceutical prices. According to one study, the

drug prices currently available under the Medicare

drug plans are over 80% more expensive than those

negotiated by the federal government and over 60% more

expensive than in Canada. [17]

 

In effect, millions of seniors and the U.S.

taxpayer are paying a costly " corruption tax. " The

triumph of the special interests produced a drug

benefit that is far more complicated than necessary

and far less helpful to seniors than possible.

 

The Involvement of the Alexander Strategy Group

 

On January 9, 2006, the Alexander Strategy Group

announced that it would shut its lobbying operations

at the end of January 2006 because of extensive

reporting linking the lobby firm to Tom DeLay and Jack

Abramoff, both of whom have been indicted in political

corruption cases. [18] As one paper reported, " the

firm had fallen victim to the ever expanding lobbying

and corruption scandal. " [19]

 

The Alexander Strategy Group was formed in 1998 by

Ed Buckham, a licensed minister who also served as

Chief of Staff and personal pastor to then-House

Majority Whip Tom DeLay. [20] The group's startup was

funded through a large contract that Rep. DeLay

secured from Enron. [21] Among the individuals with

close ties to Mr. DeLay who worked for the Alexander

Strategy Group were Tony Rudy, a former deputy chief

of staff to Mr. DeLay; Karl Gallant, a former director

of Americans for a Republican Majority PAC (ARMPAC),

Mr. DeLay's leadership PAC; and Mr. DeLay's wife,

Christine, who was on the Alexander payroll for four

years. [22] The wives of other prominent Republican

members, including Rep. John T. Doolittle, were also

hired at various points by the Alexander Strategy

Group. [23]

 

Alexander Strategy Group has been described as

" one of the crown jewels of the ... 'K Street

project.' " [24] Other reports have linked the firm or

its lobbyists to an expanding number of scandals.

These include suspect arrangements involving Indian

gambling, [25] the U.S. Family Network, [26] the

Northern Marianas Islands, [27] defrauding clients,

[28] and corrupt schemes to stop legislation involving

internet gambling and to oppose postal rate increases.

[29] Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff figure prominently in

these scandals.

 

What has not been explored, however, is the

relationship between the Alexander Strategy Group and

its largest client, the pharmaceutical industry. In

particular, there has been little investigation of the

role played by the Alexander Strategy Group in passage

of the Medicare Prescription Drug Act. We do know

enough, though, to raise serious questions.

 

According to lobby disclosure reports, the

pharmaceutical industry has been the largest client of

the Alexander Strategy Group over the last six years.

During this period, the industry's trade association,

PhRMA, paid $1.7 million to Alexander Strategy Group,

[30] while individual drug companies have paid an

additional $840,000. [31] During 2003 alone, the year

the Medicare Prescription Drug Act passed, Alexander

Strategy Group received $960,000 from the drug

industry, representing 15% of the firm's revenue. [32]

According to the disclosure forms, the Alexander

Strategy Group was hired specifically to lobby the

House and Senate on prescription drug issues and

Medicare. [33]

 

Not only was the drug industry the largest client

of the Alexander Strategy Group, the group was also

the drug industry's most highly paid outside lobbyist.

In 2003, PhRMA paid the Alexander Strategy Group

$720,000, far more than PhRMA paid any of the other

seven lobby firms it hired that year. [34] These

payments represented nearly 50% of PhRMA's annual

budget for outside lobbyists. [35]

 

Moreover, the lobby disclosure forms reveal that

the primary lobbyist representing PhRMA and Eli Lilly

during consideration of the Medicare Prescription Drug

Act was Tony Rudy. [36] Mr. Rudy is perhaps the

Alexander Strategy Group lobbyist most implicated in

scandal. In addition to being the former deputy chief

of staff for Mr. DeLay, Mr. Rudy worked for Mr.

Abramoff from 2001 to 2002, where he helped raise the

funds that were diverted to pay for a golfing trip to

Scotland, which included Rep. Bob Ney, indicted former

White House procurement chief David Safavian, and

Republican activist Ralph Reed. [37] In Mr. Abramoff's

indictment, Mr. Rudy is identified as " Staffer A. "

According to several news reports, he used his

position in Mr. DeLay's office to influence internet

gambling legislation and postal rates in exchange for

$50,000 payments to his wife. [38] Criminal

investigators are also looking into possible conflicts

of interest during the time Mr. Rudy was negotiating

his departure from Rep. DeLay's office to work for Mr.

Abramoff. [39]

 

The Need for a Congressional Investigation

 

These facts urgently call for further

investigation. The Medicare Prescription Drug Act is

deeply tainted legislation, and the Alexander Strategy

Group, the lobby firm most mired in the on-going

corruption scandals, was intimately involved in its

passage. The millions of American seniors who are

confounded by the Act's complex provisions and are

paying inflated drug prices deserve to know what went

wrong and what role the Alexander Strategy Group

played in the process.

 

There are multiple committees in Congress that

could undertake this investigation, including the

Energy and Commerce Committee, the Ways and Means

Committee, the Government Reform Committee, and the

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. These

Committees, however, have all resisted Democratic

requests to examine the legislative process that led

to passage of the Act. [40] They will not act on their

own initiative.

 

Your personal intervention is needed to spur

action. We therefore urge you to direct one of these

committees to commence an immediate investigation into

the involvement of the Alexander Strategy Group's role

in the development and passage of this legislation.

 

Congressional Investigation of the Budget

Reconciliation Bill

 

The Medicare Prescription Drug Act is not the only

major piece of pharmaceutical legislation with which

the Alexander Strategy Group has been involved. In the

first six months of 2005, the group was paid $180,000

to represent PhRMA to lobby on Medicare, Medicaid,

prescription drug issues, and the budget process. [41]

Alexander Strategy Group was also paid an additional

$300,000 during the first six months of last year to

lobby on prescription drug issues by pharmaceutical

companies Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Amgen. [42]

During this period, the primary legislation affecting

prescription drugs, Medicaid, and the budget process

was the budget reconciliation legislation.

 

The budget reconciliation bill has not yet been

passed by Congress. But its final contours are known,

and the conference report is scheduled for imminent

floor action, perhaps as soon as next week. Like the

Medicare legislation, the reconciliation bill

sacrifices the interests of low-income families to

preserve drug industry profits.

 

The Senate version of the budget reconciliation

bill had several provisions that would have required

drug companies to share the burden of reducing

Medicaid's costs. These provisions would have

increased the minimum rebate for brand-name drugs and

extended the rebate to drugs dispensed through

Medicaid managed care plans. In total, these

provisions would have saved over $10 billion over 10

years. [43]

 

These provisions were mysteriously dropped from

the conference agreement, however. Instead, the

legislation takes the budget savings directly from the

pockets of the low-income beneficiaries served by

Medicaid. The legislation specifically authorizes

states to raise the co-payments Medicaid beneficiaries

have to pay for prescription drugs to up to 20% of the

total prescription costs. These provisions are

estimated to cost low-income beneficiaries up to $5.3

billion. [44]

 

We believe that any investigation into the

Alexander Strategy Group should also examine what role

the firm played in the budget reconciliation bill,

specifically with regard to the prescription drug

provisions. We further urge you not to bring the

reconciliation bill before Congress until after this

investigation is completed. The lobbying disclosure

filings that cover the period of the conference will

be available on February 15. At a minimum, Congress

should not consider the legislation until these

filings have been studied.

 

Conclusion

 

The image and integrity of Congress have been

called into serious question. To restore public faith

in Congress, the institution must initiate a careful

examination of how corrupt practices have influenced

the legislative process. Understanding what went wrong

is a prerequisite to accountability and reform.

 

For these reasons, we urge you to direct an

immediate investigation into the legislative process

that produced the Medicare Prescription Drug Act, the

drafting of the pharmaceutical provisions in the

pending budget reconciliation bill, and the role of

the Alexander Strategy Group.

 

Sincerely,

 

Nancy Pelosi

Democratic Leader

 

Steny H. Hoyer

Democratic Whip

 

Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Minority Member

 

Committee on Government Reform

 

 

 

--

Footnotes

[1] Letter from Sen. Tom Daschle, Rep. Nancy

Pelosi, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Rep. Henry A. Waxman,

Sen. Bob Graham, Rep. John D. Dingell, Sen. Frank

Lautenberg, Rep. Charles B. Rangel, Sen. Hillary

Rodham Clinton, Rep. Fortney Pete Stark, Sen. John D.

Rockefeller IV, Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, Rep. Sherrod

Brown, and Sen. Tim Johnson to Senate Majority Leader

William H. Frist and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert

(Sep. 8, 2004).

 

[2] See. e.g., The White House, President Bush

Meets With Congressional Leaders on Medicare (Nov. 17,

2003); House Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Testimony of the Honorable Tommy Thompson, Secretary,

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hearing

on Review of the Administration FY2004 Health Care

Priorities, 108th Cong., 24 (Feb. 12, 2003) (Serial

No. 108-8). See also, e.g., The White House, President

Announces Framework to Modernize and Improve Medicare

(March 4, 2003); Special Report With Brit Hume, Fox

News Network (Nov. 24, 2003); The White House, Ask the

White House (Sep. 25, 2003); House Committee on Ways

and Means, Testimony of Mitchell J. Daniels, Director,

White House Office of Management and Budget, Hearing

on the President's Fiscal 2004 Budget With OMB Daniels, 108th Cong., 43 (Feb. 5, 2003)

(Serial No. 108-1); Senate Committee on Finance,

Testimony of Thomas Scully, Director, Centers for

Medicare and Medicaid Services, Hearing on

Strengthening and Improving the Medicare Program,

108th Cong. (June 6, 2003).

 

[3] White House Says Congressional Estimate of New

Medicare Costs Was Too Low, New York Times (Feb. 2,

2004).

 

[4] House Committee on Ways and Means, Testimony

of Richard Foster, Hearing on Board of Trustees 2004

Annual Reports, 108th Cong. (Mar. 24, 2004).

 

[5] Government Accountability Office, Report from

GAO General Counsel Anthony H. Hamboa to Sens. Frank

R. Lautenberg, Tom Daschle, Edward M. Kennedy, et al.,

Re: Department of Health and Human Services - Chief

Actuary's Communications with Congress (Sept. 7, 2004)

(B-302911).

 

[6] H.Res. 299, 108th Cong. (2003).

 

[7] Medicare Bill Squeezes Through House at Dawn,

Washington Post (Nov. 23, 2004).

 

[8] Time Was GOP's Ally on the Vote, Washington

Post (Nov. 23, 2003). See also, House Committee on

Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation of

Certain Allegations Related to Voting on the Medicare

Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act

of 2003 (Sept. 30, 2004).

 

[9] Health Industry Bidding to Hire Medicaid

Chief, New York Times (Dec. 3, 2003).

 

[10] Id.

 

[11] Lobbying Disclosure Forms Filed by Alston &

Bird with the Senate Office of Public Affairs. The

drug companies for which Mr. Scully registered as a

lobbyist in 2004 included Aventis, Abbott

Laboratories, and Praecis Pharmaceuticals.

 

[12] House's Author of Drug Benefit Joins

Lobbyists, New York Times (Dec. 16, 2004).

 

[13] Congressman to Lead Biotech Trade Group, New

York Times (July 23, 2004).

 

[14] House Ethics Panel Says DeLay Tried to Trade

Favor for a Vote, New York Times (Oct. 1, 2004).

 

[15] House Committee on Standards of Official

Conduct, Investigation of Certain Allegations Related

to Voting on the Medicare Prescription Drug,

Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Sept. 30,

2004).

 

[16] House Committee on Government Reform,

Minority Briefing on the Implementation of the New

Medicare Drug Benefit, Statement of Jack Hoadley,

Ph.D., Research Professor, Health Policy Institute,

Georgetown University (Jan. 20, 2006).

 

[17] Minority Staff, House Committee on Government

Reform, New Medicare Drug Plans Fail to Provide

Meaningful Drug Discounts (Nov. 2005) (online at

www.democrats.reform.house.gov/story.asp?ID=975 & Issue=Medicaid+and+Medicare)

 

 

[18] Lobby Firm Is Scandal Casualty, Washington

Post (Jan. 10, 2006).

 

[19] Key Clients Quit Alexander Strategy Group;

Others Weigh Options, Roll Call (Jan. 10, 2006).

 

[20] DeLay and Company, Time Magazine (Mar. 21,

2005).

 

[21] Tom DeLay's Tammany Fall, The New Republic

(June 20, 2005).

 

[22] Id., See also, Lobby Firm Is Scandal

Casualty, supra note 18.

 

[23] Lobbying Firm Is Scandal Casualty, supra note

18.

 

[24] Officials Focus on a 2nd Firm Tied to DeLay,

New York Times (Jan. 7, 2006).

 

[25] See, e.g., Insiders Worked Both Sides of

Gaming Issue, Washington Post (Sep. 28, 2004).

 

[26] The Man Who Bought Washington, Time Magazine

(Jan. 16, 2006).

 

[27] A Question of Influence, Los Angeles Times

(May 6, 2005).

 

[28] Defendant's Plea Agreement, U.S. vs. Jack

Abramoff, D.D.C., 7-8 (Jan. 3, 2006).

 

[29] Defendant's Plea Agreement, U.S. vs. Jack

Abramoff, D.D.C., 9-14 (Jan. 3, 2006).

 

[30] This number was derived from analysis of

Alexander Strategy Group's lobbying disclosure forms,

on file with the Senate Office of Public Records, for

PhRMA from 2000 through 2005.

 

[31] This number was derived from analysis of

Alexander Strategy Group's lobbying disclosure forms,

filed with the Senate Office of Public Records, for

Eli Lilly from 2002 through 2005, Amgen from 2004

through 2005, and AstraZeneca for 2005.

 

[32] Analysis of Alexander Strategy Group's

lobbying disclosure forms for 2003 show that the firm

was paid a total of $6,486,000 by its clients for

lobbying activities, of which $960,000 was paid by

PhRMA and Eli Lilly, or 15%.

 

[33] Lobbying Disclosure Midyear and Year End

Reports filed by Alexander Strategy Group with the

Senate Office of Public Records (Aug. 14, 2003 and

Feb. 17, 2004).

 

[34] Lobbying Disclosure Midyear and Year End

Reports filed by Alexander Strategy Group, Bergner

Bockorny Castagnetti Hawkins & Brain, C2 Group,

Capitol Hill Strategies, Clark & Weinstock, Gorlin

Group, Murphy & Associates, and Wise & Associates with

the Senate Office of Public Records (Aug. 2003 and

Feb. 2004).

 

[35] Id.

 

[36] Lobbying Disclosure Midyear and Year End

Reports filed by Alexander Strategy Group with the

Senate Office of Public Records (Aug. 14, 2003 and

Feb. 17, 2004).

 

[37] Defendant's Plea Agreement, U.S. vs. Jack

Abramoff, D.D.C., 7-8 (Jan. 3, 2006). See also,

Foundation Funds Diverted From Mission, Washington

Post (Sep. 28, 2004).

 

[38] Lobby Firm Is Scandal Casualty, supra note

18.

 

[39] As the Revolving Door Turns, BusinessWeek

(July 11, 2005).

 

[40] Democrats have made a number of efforts to

get these Committees to investigate the illegal

withholding of the Medicare cost estimates. In the

House, Democrats introduced H. Res. 776, which would

have required the Administration to turn over

information relating to the Medicare cost estimates.

This resolution was rejected by the House Committee on

Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Ways

and Means. (House Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Adverse Report to Accompany H. Res. 776 (Oct. 8, 2004)

(H. Rept. 108-754); (House Committee on Ways and

Means, Adverse Report to Accompany H. Res 776) (Oct.

7, 2004) (H. Rept. 108-754)). The Chairman of the

House Government Reform Committee also turned down a

request by the Ranking Member for an investigation

(Letter from Rep. Henry A. Waxman to Government Reform

Committee Chairman Tom Davis (Mar. 17, 2004)). In

addition, the Republicans on the House Ways and Means

Committee voted down motions to subpoena two key

witnesses, including Mr. Scully, who refused to appear

voluntarily (House Committee on Ways and Means

Democrats, New Release, Ways and Means Republicans

Allow Scully and the White House to Avoid Answering

Questions on Medicare Estimate Coverup (Apr. 1,

2004)). In the Senate, the Senate Finance committee

never held hearings on this issue, despite two letters

from Democrats requesting public hearings. (E.g.,

Letters from Senators Tom Daschle, Bob Graham, and

Kent Conrad to Senate Committee on Finance Chairman

Chalres Grassley and Ranking minority Member Max

Baucus (Jan. 30, 2004); Letter from Senators Tom

Daschle, Bob Graham, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller et

al. to Senate Committee on Finance Chairman Charles

Grassley and Ranking Minority Member Max Baucus (Mar.

26, 2004)).

 

[41] Lobbying Disclosure Midyear Report filed by

Alexander Strategy Group with the Senate Office of

Public Records (Aug. 15, 2005).

 

[42] Id.

 

[43] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,

Assessing the Effects of the Budget Conference

Agreement on Low-Income Families and Individuals (Jan.

9, 2006).

 

[44] Minority Staff, House Committee on Budget,

Summary and Analysis of Reconciliation Conference

Report (Dec. 22, 2005), at 4 (online at

http://www.house.gov/budget_democrats/

analyses/06reconciliation_conference_report.pdf). The

total cost was derived by adding the provisions for

increasing cost-sharing and premiums, eliminating

federal benefit standards, and tightening asset rules

and other changes to long-term care, then subtracting

the cuts that already existed in the Senate version of

the bill. See also, Center on Budget and Policy

Priorities, supra note 43.

 

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_012506Q.shtml