Protection of Incapacitated Persons Act of 2005

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. President, what is the time situation?

Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. Therefore, it has no impact that involves actual events or activity. It expresses the sense of the Senate as to what we think we should do on something. We have had a few of those.

The attempt has been, of course, to reduce the number of sense-of- the-Senate amendments. This would be subject to a 60-vote point of order on a sense-of-the-Senate budget resolution. I will not make that point of order.

I will say this: We will probably take this sense of the Senate. This is about SCAAP. SCAAP has some serious problems. That is why it has always been looked at in a fairly suspect way, not only by the Bush administration but before that the Clinton administration had concerns about it. And the concerns are these: It essentially is a revenue- sharing event. Essentially these dollars go back to the States in very large amounts of money. They go to the border States, primarily California and Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, but primarily California and Texas are the two major beneficiaries of this program. But they go back without any strings attached.

The theory is that they are going to be spent to relieve some of the burden that is put on these States relative to incarcerating illegal aliens who are captured in those States and are detained within those States in State prison facilities. That is a legitimate purpose. We should be assisting those States in that area because we are putting pressure on those States in a unique way. Other States don't have the same pressure. But there is nothing to say the money has to be spent that way. It is literally a check which the Federal Government writes to the States of Texas, California, or Arizona. And if the Governors want to use it to build a road or use it to buy a new school or for some other activity, the Governors can do that.

I have always said let us put some language into this which makes it clear that this money is going to go to the States for the purpose of giving those States assistance with detaining illegal aliens but isn't going to end up being used, as I suspect, for primarily a basic State commitment to its own correctional system.

I think you can make a pretty good case that there is a history here of this money essentially being used to supplement efforts on the part of the States in their own correctional systems.

I hope when we reauthorize this language, which will come through the Senate's Judiciary Committee, that type of language which makes it clear this money has to be used for the purpose for which it is designated will be included. That is a debate between the authorizing committee and the appropriating committee. The Budget Committee doesn't have any direct impact on that. We don't do programmatic activity at the Budget Committee level.

I haven't read the sense of Senate yet, but I suspect we will simply accept it. After I read it, I may change my mind. That can be a mistake, as we know, around here. That is my concern and reservation about the program.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Can I ask the Chair what the status of the time is, Mr. President?

Mr. President, this proposal increases spending over the bill by approximately $30 billion. That is a fairly significant amount of money. It also raises taxes by $14 billion, which is also a significant amount of money. We are now at a point where amendments offered from the other side of the aisle increase spending by approximately $100 billion and increase taxes by approximately $60 billion. At some point you must ask the question, What is the purpose of a budget if the only purpose is to simply increase taxes and increase spending?

From my viewpoint, the purpose of the budget is to actually try to put in fiscal discipline and have some controls over spending and, as a result, have some controls over the amount of money we are taking out of people's pockets. Remember, it is their money, not our money, and spending it for them rather than allowing them to spend it themselves.

So I obviously oppose this amendment. As the Senator from West Virginia noted, I voted against the $318

billion when it came through the first time. And I do note that, yes, there were a number of people who voted for that at the time. But I do note the President, working with the Members of the Congress, has reached an agreement as to what we can afford in the area of highway funds, and that agreement is $284 billion.

Now, we put that in the budget. That is what we put in the budget. Now, some might say, well, that is not enough, but actually I think it is almost $50 billion more than where we started. I think we started at $236 billion for this highway bill, or somewhere in that range.

So there has been a fair amount of movement upward toward trying to address the issue of infrastructure in this country and making sure that highway construction is adequately funded. So $284 billion is not a small amount of change. It is a rather significant amount of money and is a very strong commitment to the highways.

There is a second amendment floating around here on the issue of highways, which is offered by the Senator from Missouri, and was discussed earlier today, which would change the way that we might add money into the highway bill. We put in the budget resolution a reserve fund which essentially said that more dollars could go into the highway bill, you could get to the number the Senator from West Virginia proposed, if you legitimately raised revenues to pay for it. And legitimately raising revenues means having proposals which actually will produce revenues as versus ones that are a lot of smoke and a lot of mirrors.

So the language is not overly restrictive, it is reasonable. But it does expect that if we raise this highway fund up, it will be done in a way that is paid for appropriately out of highway-related activity, not out of the general fund.

That is a very important point because when this highway bill was put together there was some movement of dollars from the general fund into the highway fund through basically moving around the accounting mechanism for the ethanol tax. So we put in place this reserve fund which does allow for the dollars spent on highways to go up.

I put that in because there were a lot of people here who believed $284 billion was not an acceptable number.

Now, the President says it is an acceptable number. In fact, he said he will veto anything over that number. But I believed as long as it has hard pay-fors we will consider it. And that is reasonable.

Now, the amendment that is floating around here would basically take those hard pay-fors and move them back to what I would call, not illusory because they are not that specious, but they really are not very hard pay-fors. There could be a lot of games played with the language that is being proposed relative to what the pay-fors would be, and you might end up, unfortunately, spending the money but not ever getting the revenues in to cover those costs.

So I oppose that language, too, because I do feel very strongly that if we are going to go above the $284 billion level, we need to go above it with hard pay-fors that come out of highway activity, not out of the general fund.

So these two amendments are floating around here. I guess they are going to be voted in sequence probably. I just want to point out that I think both of them do damage to this budget in the area of fiscal discipline. And the one that is before us right now would raise taxes by $14 billion and increase spending by $35 billion, which is just too much to handle in the context of this budget, where the highway number is an agreed-to number between the two bodies and the President.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time on this amendment.

The Senator may use the time.

I ask the Senator from North Dakota, through the Chair, if he would mind yielding a couple of minutes off the 7\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Kentucky to respond to the Senator's point.

Mr. President, I will yield 1 minute off of my time, if the Senator from Kentucky needs it.

Mr. President, it is not a unique procedure to use reconciliation to address the debt limit. The debt limit is something that as a Government we have to do. If the debt is run up, the debt limit has to be run up or else the bonds cannot be issued in order to set up the debt properly.

If that is not done, what happens? The Government shuts down. So in a number of instances, and I believe even in the Democratic Party, in two instances when the Democratic Party controlled the Senate, reconciliation included the debt limit. So it is the responsible thing to do to have this vehicle available.

That does not mean the Finance Committee will use it. It may be that we will not use it. But we need to have this vehicle available in order to make sure the Government continues to operate. In fact, one could argue that if this amendment were to pass, it would put in jeopardy at some point down the road the operation of the Government because the debt limit might be put in the position where it could not pass. That is not hyperbole. That is a distinct possibility and a hypothetical that could actually occur.

So the responsible thing to do is to have debt limit reconciliation instructions as one of the elements. That is why the Budget Act allows for it. Interestingly enough, this is not something we created. It was created by the Budget Act which was, of course, written under a Democratic Congress. As I mentioned, it has been used twice when the Democratic Party was in the majority. So it is a reasonable approach. It is something that needs to be included within the budget, and I would certainly hope this amendment would be rejected.

I yield back the remainder of my time on the amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time remaining which I have and the Democratic manager has, Senator Conrad, that we be able to reserve that time and use it at a later period in the day, during the voting.

Mr. President, I now move that we go to the first issue, which is going to be the Medicaid amendment offered by Senator Frist, the majority leader, and I yield myself a minute on that. Each side has a minute?

Mr. President, I make a point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when we begin to vote the order of votes will be as follows, for the initial set of amendments.

We will begin with the majority leader's amendment relative to Medicaid, which is No. 229; followed by the Bingaman for Senator Smith amendment on Medicaid, No. 204; followed by the Carper amendment on full consideration of tax cuts, No. 207; followed by the Snowe-Wyden drug pricing amendment, No. 214; followed by the Harkin vocational education amendment, No. 172; followed by the Hutchison-Ensign Border Patrol amendment, No. 218; followed by the Landrieu National Guard amendment, No. 219; followed by the Salazar-Conrad rural education and health amendment, No. 215; followed by the Dorgan runaway corporations amendment, No. 210; followed by the Lieberman-Collins first responder amendment, No. 220; followed by the Vitter port security, amendment, No. 223; followed by the Vitter Corps of Engineers amendment, No. 224; followed by the Allen, as modified, NASA amendment, No. 197; followed by the Sarbanes CDBG amendment, No. 156, followed by the Coleman CDBG amendment, No. 230; followed by the Cochran emergency retirement amendment, No. 208; followed by the Kennedy education amendment, No. 177; followed by the Baucus-Conrad amendment No. 234, agriculture; followed by the Biden COPS amendment, No. 239; followed by the Feinstein State Criminal Assistance Program, No. 188; followed by the Byrd highways amendment, No. 240; followed by the Talent highway amendment, No. 225; followed by the Conrad sense of the Senate regarding Social Security tax, No. 243; followed by the Bunning repeal of Social Security tax, No. 241; followed by the Clinton-Reid prevention first amendment, No. 244; followed by the Lautenberg debt limit amendment, No. 187.

That is the first group of amendments which we will be taking up.

Mr. President, we are going to move to the Frist amendment in a few minutes, and begin to vote.

I think the Democratic leader has made a very constructive suggestion for the process. I would be happy to accept that.

I am happy to go to 30 seconds for each side.

Mr. President, recognizing that the first amendment to be considered is the Frist amendment, are the yeas and nays ordered?

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all amendments after this amendment be 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise on behalf the majority leader, who is detained at another location. The majority leader's amendment simply accomplishes the best of both worlds in the sense that he continues the reconciliation instruction so we will move forward with Medicaid reform.

This year, he also sets up a commission which makes it very clear that Medicaid reform will not impact services to children or people who are in need but would, rather, look at how we improve this process of delivering Medicaid services without undermining the process of Medicaid services.

As I said before, if we do not move forward with reconciliation this year, we are not going to do it at all.

It is my understanding that the proponents will speak first. We will let the time run.

Mr. President, to the extent there is a Damocles sword, it is hanging over the generations to come who are going to have to pay the bills for our generation. The failure to address those bills today is going to make it virtually impossible for our children and their children to have the quality of life we have had because of the tax burden we are going to pass on. I hope people vote ``no.''

I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask unanimous consent we accept the Hutchison-Ensign amendment.

Mr. President, the time will run.

Mr. President, has the minute run?

I suggest we go to a vote.

Mr. President, can I have order. I am going to suggest something, and I would like to get everyone's attention.

We are going to move to the Dorgan amendment.

Mr. President, to begin with, I ask unanimous consent that the Vitter amendment No. 223 on port security, a sense of the Senate, be agreed to.

Mr. President, we are now going to go to the Dorgan amendment for which we will have the 10-minute vote, but we have decided--Senator Conrad and myself, after consulting with the leadership--that for the next 3 amendments there will be 5-minute votes. There will be no statements between the votes. That will be the Lieberman-Collins amendment on first responders, the Vitter amendment on the Corps of Engineers, and the Allen amendment, as modified, on NASA. I ask unanimous consent that be the order.

Mr. President, at the request of a number of Senators who are sponsors of amendments, we have decided that we are going to restore the minute that was equally divided so Members can explain their amendments. But we are staying with the 5-minute vote for the next three amendments. However, we are skipping over Senator Allen's amendment because we hope to work that out. That would mean that Senator Sarbanes' amendment on CDBG would be the third 5-minute vote. But there will be a minute equally divided before the votes.

I believe we are now on the Lieberman amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 223, agreed to earlier, be modified with the language at the desk. It has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 224 be agreed to, regarding the Corps of Engineers.

Yes.

Mr. President, we are now on the Sarbanes amendment. If this experiment is going to work--and I am not sure it is--I think it would be more likely to succeed if everybody sat at their desks as the clerk called the roll. Again, we are on the Sarbanes amendment.

Mr. President, it has the practical effect of increasing spending by $1.9 billion and increasing taxes by $1.9 billion. Of course, there is no binding language that would have any effect on the Appropriations Committee. Jurisdiction as to how this money would be spent would be entirely with the Appropriations Committee, and they could spend it any way they want. It breaks the cap and raises taxes. I hope we oppose it.

We have now done a 5-minute vote two times. Senator Conrad and I were wondering what the reaction of the Chamber is. We thought we would ask for a show of hands.

How many want to keep going 5 minutes or go back to 10 minutes? All those in favor of 5 minutes raise your hand.

(Showing of hands.)

How many want to stay at 10 minutes?

(Showing of hands.)

We are going to try 5 minutes some more. What a democracy. It is very impressive.

Amendment No. 230

Mr. President, of course, the committee of jurisdiction will have the decision on how these monies are spent and what decisions are made. But the practical effect--I think Members should know this-- the practical effect of a 920 cut is an across-the-board cut. So, for example, a $2 billion item such as this means a billion dollars comes out of defense and a certain percentage comes out of education, a certain percentage comes out of health care, a certain percentage comes out of homeland security. That is the way this would work were the Appropriations Committee to follow these instructions.

Mr. President, please recognize Senator Bayh.

Mr. President, Senator Gregg and I will work out how the time is used right here. It will either come out of the time in opposition or perhaps we could work out how we are using the balance of the time here, the 7\1/2\ minutes. Did the Senator want to use the time in opposition or should I use this time?

I will use the time and talk about the side by side. So we will be using the 7\1/2\ minutes on the other side of this amendment.

It is the best way, I say to my colleagues, to try to keep this all on track. We are trying to get to the 1 o'clock mark and be able to proceed with all of the amendments that are stacked.

Amendment No. 243

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

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

Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It says it is the sense of the Senate that the tax cuts assumed in this resolution include repeal of the 1993 law that subject 85 percent of certain Social Security benefits to the income tax, provided that the revenue lost to the medical hospital insurance trust fund is fully replaced so that seniors' access to health care is not adversely affected. If the inclusion of these proposals would otherwise cause the cost of the tax cuts to exceed the level authorized in the resolution, any excess should be fully offset by closing corporate tax loopholes.

We are proposing eliminating that tax on Social Security, as Senator Bunning is proposing. We are proposing doing it in a way that the revenue lost to the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund is fully replaced so that seniors' access to health care is not adversely affected. As I have indicated, if the inclusion of these proposals would otherwise cause the cost of the tax cuts to exceed the level authorized in the underlying resolution, any excess should be fully offset by closing corporate tax loopholes.

This will now be in the queue, along with the Bunning amendment.

I retain my time.

I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the Senator.

Let's be very clear: The legal effect of our two amendments is precisely the same--precisely the same. Why is that the case? Because a budget resolution cannot compel the Finance Committee to do anything in terms of policy. That is just a fact. I know it is confusing to our colleagues, but the chairman has said a dozen times at least on the floor of the Senate that the budget resolution cannot compel the Finance Committee to make any specific policy determination with respect to revenue. All we are doing is telling them how much revenue to raise. That is the same with respect to the appropriations committees. A budget resolution does not tell the appropriators what specific way they are to reach the numbers. It just gives them a number.

So let us be absolutely clear--the force and effect of our two amendments is no different. Senator Bunning is attempting to send a signal to the Finance Committee about how they should treat the reconciliation process. That is what my amendment does as well. We are sending the same signal in the sense that we are both saying, take this Social Security benefits tax as it relates to income tax off the table.

The place where I think he has made a very important point is that, since these taxes were put in place back in 1993, there has never been any change in the income levels that it relates to.

That is something that I think we can absolutely agree on. This just doesn't make any sense. It is indefensible that there has not been any adjustment. So we are sending this amendment to our colleagues with the hope and the expectation that they will pay the same attention to it that they will pay to the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky. We are about to enter the time when we will cast a series of votes. I don't know how many votes we now have in the queue; I think it is approaching 30 amendments. It may be useful at this point to send a message to our colleagues about how we are going to try to conduct these votes.

We are going to be asking our colleagues to accept short time limits on the votes. People will have a chance to make arguments for and against the amendments to remind people of the subject of their amendments. It is important for colleagues to structure their schedules for the remainder of the day that will allow them to stay in or close to the Chamber. We don't want colleagues to miss votes.

At the same time, we want to move these votes as expeditiously as possible. Thirty votes is just the beginning. Let us alert our colleagues one more time. In addition to the 30 votes, or thereabouts, already in the queue, we have dozens and dozens of additional amendments that have been noticed. When the first vote starts, we will be asking the leadership--at least on our side, and the Senator can speak to his side--to go to Members who have noticed amendments and ask them to sharply reduce the number of amendments they intend to offer.

I thank the Chair.

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

How much time remains on both sides?

Mr. President, I am going to use time off Senator Clinton's time on this amendment.

We have before us a budget resolution that purports to be fiscally responsible. This budget resolution before us is anything but that. The hard reality is that the budget before us increases the debt every year of its terms by over $600 billion.

When they say this is going to cut the deficit in half, their own document shows their projections of debt increase are over $600 billion a year, each and every year of this budget. That is not fiscally responsible.

I see that the Senator from New York has arrived in the Chamber. I advise her that she has about 3 minutes left of her time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be charged equally.

Parliamentary inquiry: In terms of the time, when we

are charging the time equally at this point, we are charging time equally off the amendment; is that correct?

I thank the Chair.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is left in the queue, so colleagues who are watching can be informed where we stand with respect to the schedule?

To recap, if I can, so colleagues understand about where we are, is this correct, that we would have 10 minutes on the Lautenberg amendment equally divided which is in relationship to debt limit?

And then Senator Gregg has 5 minutes in relationship to the Clinton amendment.

Then the schedule of going to the votes that are in sequence would start at 1 o'clock?

So our colleagues should be advised that the voting will begin at or about 1 o'clock. Can the Chair advise us of how many amendments are pending?

So I think it is fair, in terms of advising our colleagues, very shortly we are going to start on a voting sequence that will include--is it 25 amendments?

So 25 amendments are in queue. We can generally do-- correct me if I am wrong--we can roughly do three votes an hour.

I just say, I have never seen us accomplish four. We have tried.

With 25 votes stacked, we are talking about 8 hours of voting; would that not be correct?

I thank the Chair. We are awaiting Senator Lautenberg to take up the 10 minutes on his amendment, unless Senator Gregg wants the remaining time on the Clinton amendment.

I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, will the Chair advise us when the time on the Clinton amendment has been eliminated and the time on the Lautenberg amendment commences?

I thank the Chair. I again suggest the absence of a quorum.

I yield an additional minute to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Having now reached the hour of 1, the order would provide that the votes start at 1; is that correct?

The chairman of the committee and I have agreed we will put in a quorum call at this moment, and we will remind colleagues that we will begin the voting very shortly.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I personally think that would be a mistake. My experience here has been when we have so many votes occurring that if there is not some explanation, people literally may not know what they are voting on. If we want to reduce it to 30 seconds, I think you need at least a moment for people to have it brought to their attention what the vote pertains to.

I urge us to have at least a limited amount of time for those who are for and against to have some explanation before the vote.

Mr. President, if I could say this: Yes, people have staff. But the staff who are here are the staff of those of us who are managing this resolution. Many individuals don't have staff in this Chamber. I have found that when we start having 25 or 30 votes in a row, Members can get almost disoriented about what they are voting on. I think it would be a mistake not to have a chance to say what it is.

I absolutely agree with the Senator on the need to compress the time. As the Senator knows, we have been working diligently to try to organize this in a way that reduces the time. I would accept going to 30 seconds on a side.

Mr. President, I rise as a strong supporter of the bill of the Senator from Florida. I think it is absolutely imperative that we as a body take action to give a Federal court an opportunity to review this determination.

A woman's life is at stake, and it is absolutely imperative that we take action today. We are working diligently on both sides--I thank the majority leader and I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum--and we are going to take action today. So we have to try to work through some issues to make certain we get that opportunity. But I pledge as the manager of this bill that we will interrupt this bill at any time when we have a resolution so that we can take action to save this woman's life or to give a court an opportunity to review this case.

I ask unanimous consent we accept the Salazar amendment No. 215.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lindsey Graham be added as a cosponsor on Senator Landrieu's amendment.

Could we have order because we are going to be talking about something Members need to hear.

Mr. President, let me very quickly explain why we are going to try this experiment on three votes. Here is the situation we face. In 2 hours we have done six amendments. We have 26 amendments in this queue. We have 40 or 50 amendments after that. You do the math: 20 and 40 is 60; three amendments an hour; that is 20 more hours of voting.

Now, we can either subject ourselves to that or try to find a way to break through this morass and make more progress. The leadership has agreed to try on three amendments an experiment: 5-minute votes. Please, colleagues, let's see if we can't make this go more efficiently.

Amendment No. 210

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

Mr. President, the previous Vitter amendment is vitiated because this is a replacement--it is modified.

Modified by 224.

Amendment No. 156

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1332) to amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for the removal to Federal court of certain State court cases involving the rights of incapacitated persons, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1332, the bill currently under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1332, the Protection of Incapacitated Persons Act of 2005, which I introduced today with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Madam Speaker, the Florida courts are poised to determine that Terri Schiavo will have her feeding tube removed on Friday. This legislation will protect Ms. Schiavo from starving to death by allowing her to have a Federal court consider her case anew, unrestricted by the findings of the State court.

H.R. 1332 authorizes the removal of cases in State court to U.S. Federal court to vindicate the Federal rights of incapacitated persons under the United States Constitution or any Federal law. Such proceedings would be authorized after an incapacitated person has exhausted available State remedies and the relevant papers must be filed in Federal court within 30 days after the exhaustion of available State remedies.

What is going on in Florida regarding Terri Schiavo is nothing short of inhumane. She is facing what amounts to a death sentence, ensuring that she will slowly starve to death over a matter of weeks. Terri Schiavo, a woman who smiles and cries and who is not on a respirator or any other 24-hour-a-day medical equipment, has committed no crime; and she has done nothing wrong. Yet the Florida courts seem bent on setting an extremely dangerous precedent by saying that we must stop feeding someone who cannot feed herself. Who is next? The disabled or those late in life? This legislation is humane and the right thing, not only to protect Terri Schiavo, but also to reinforce the law's commitment to justice and compassion for all, even the most vulnerable.

The bill applies to anyone who might find themselves in Terri Schiavo's situation, namely, those who are in an incapacitated state and facing a court order authorizing ``the withdrawal or withholding of food or fluids or medical treatment necessary to sustain the incapacitated person's life.'' The bill applies only to incapacitated persons, not to convicted criminals or those facing the death penalty, for example.

Furthermore, it applies only to those who have not executed in advance a written directive, commonly known as a living will, that clearly authorizes the withholding or withdrawal of food, water, and medical treatment in the event the person becomes incapacitated.

What Terri Schiavo and all disabled people deserve in contested cases is for justice to tilt toward life. When a person's intentions regarding whether to receive lifesaving treatment are unclear, the clear choice is to provide an innocent person with the opportunity to have a Federal court provide a ``double-check'' for life under Federal law, unencumbered by the decisions of a State court. A measure of a Nation's commitment to innocent life is measured in its laws by the extent to which the laws go to save it. This bill takes that extra step, not just for Terri Schiavo but for all of us. And I urge every Member of this House to take that step with me and overwhelmingly pass this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), the principal cosponsor of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has said that the Private Relief Bill is the way to go rather than the legislation that is before us. If the Private Relief Bill were introduced or came over from the Senate, Terri Schiavo would be dead before we could consider it.

I would draw the Members' attention to rule XIII clause 1(a)(3) of the rules of the House of Representatives that says that the Private Calendar is provided in clause 5 of rule XV to which shall be referred all private bills and all private resolutions.

There is no exception to that.

And rule XV clause 5 says that the private calendar shall be called only on the first Tuesday of every month, and at the Speaker's discretion, in addition, the third Tuesday of the month.

Furthermore, clause 5 of rule XV says that the Speaker may not entertain a reservation of the right to object to the consideration of the bill or resolution under this clause.

That means that private bills go through without debate.

And furthermore, under the clause that I have just cited, two Members may object to the private bill in which case it is recommitted to the committee.

So if only two Members are opposed to a private bill and come to the floor and object, that kills it once and for all.

Now, those are the procedural hurdles against the private bill coming up. And that is why the only way to deal with this issue in a timely manner is through public legislation such as the bill that is currently under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I would just refer the membership to the text of the bill on the top of page 3, which says, and I read it, ``In hearing and determining a claim or cause of action removed under this section, the court shall only consider whether authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food or fluids or medical treatment necessary to sustain the incapacitated person's life constitutes a deprivation of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.''

Now, in every civil rights lawsuit that was removed to Federal court, the Federal court applied privileges and immunities and protections provided by the Constitution of the United States or Federal law, and all this bill does is to allow the same type of review on whether someone's Federal rights are deprived by action of the State court in the Federal court.

If we did not do this in the civil rights revolution of the 1960s, this country would be a lot different place and a lot worse place than it is today. It was Federal judges that applied Federal law in those cases, and if it was good enough to apply them in the civil rights cases of the 1960s, why is it not good enough to deprive a person who is incapacitated the same type of Federal judicial review on their Federal rights in a Federal court?

We should not deprive an incapacitated person of a judicial review in a Federal court of their Federal civil rights, and that is why this bill ought to pass.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Madam Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) that this is a complicated bill, and it is an unusual procedure that we are bringing this matter before the House of Representatives tonight. However, if we do not deal with this issue, by the time we get around to having hearings and markups and debates and perhaps a conference committee this woman will have died, and that is why I think it shows the compassion of this House of Representatives and those who are supporting this bill to allow a Federal court to view whether or not this woman's civil rights, secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, have been violated. I think she is entitled to have that kind of a Federal review before a final decision is made on whether to allow her to starve to death or to die of dehydration, and that is why we are here tonight.

It shows that the Congress can be compassionate, and it shows that we can deal with issues promptly, rather than saying oops, maybe something could have been done in the Federal court in a review of her Federal civil rights, but it is too late because she passed away.

Please pass the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Montana for his overly charitable and very gracious comments concerning my efforts. I thank him for his work, likewise.

Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to allow the Senate to once again pass a $318 billion highway bill. That is precisely the bill that the Senate approved last year by a vote of 76 to 21.

Now, my good friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Gregg, was among the 21 Senators who voted against last year's highway bill. I don't have any expectations he will support the amendment. My plea is to the 73 Senators still serving in the Senate who voted for that highway bill last year, Republicans and Democrats alike. We must reverse the continuing deterioration of the highways and transit systems in our State. We know the right vote was cast in February of last year when we approved a $318 billion highway bill despite the veto threats of the President.

We know that the highway and transit needs in the States have not diminished one thin dime since that vote last year. Today I am asking my colleagues to vote again for a budget that will allow for a $318 billion highway bill.

Just yesterday, the Environment and Public Works Committee marked up a new highway will. The bill marked up yesterday in committee provides far less funding than the bill passed last year, so that the bill's total would stay within the level of funding that President Bush has said he would accept, namely, $284 billion. That lower level of funding, $284 billion, is the level incorporated in the budget resolution before the Senate. The product of yesterday's committee markup is harsh medicine--harsh medicine, indeed--to all 50 States in our Nation. The bill approved in committee yesterday distributes almost $25 billion less to our States in formula funds than the bill approved by more than three-quarters of the Senate last year.

We now see precisely the amount of money that States will lose as a result of this retreat because it represents the elimination of almost 1.2 million jobs that would have been created without that lost funding. A major benefit of the committee having marked up its bill yesterday is that every Senator can see what their State will lose as a result of this retreat.

Currently sitting on every Senator's desk is a table comparing the amount of funding that was distributed by a formula to every State between 2005 and 2009 under the bill approved by the Senate last year and the smaller bill approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday. I have taken the liberty of including in this table the size of the job loss that results from these funding reductions. I ask unanimous consent this table be printed in the Record at this point.

I ask every Senator to take a close look at this table before voting on this amendment. Senators should be aware of precisely the amount of investment and the number of jobs their State will be losing if they vote against this amendment. In my state of West Virginia, failure to adopt this amendment will mean a loss of almost $275 million and this amendment will mean a loss of almost $275 million and more than 13,000 desperately needed jobs.

For several larger States--such as Florida, Georgia, and Ohio--the loss over a 5-year-period to each State is more than $1 billion and more than 50,000 jobs.

Mr. President, before any Senator argues that my amendment just increases spending without ensuring it will be spent on highways and mass transit, let me point out that my amendment restores the special highway and transit budget categories. Every additional penny provided by this amendment will be required to be spent on our highways or mass transit programs.

The offset for my amendment is the very same type of financing mechanism that served to enhance the receipts to the highway trust fund and were included in last year's highway bill with the bipartisan support of the Senate Finance Committee.

Mr. President, may I ask for 1 additional minute?

Mr. President, I know that some Members are saying that it is foolhardy to try to pass a highway bill at $318 billion because the President has already vowed to veto a measure of that size. But I wish to remind my colleagues that our job--our job here--is to legislate based on our recognition of what is needed by our States and by the Nation. It is the President's job to either sign that bill or veto it.

So I ask my colleagues, why do our constituents send us here if we do not look out for their needs? We have been sent here to vote our conscience and to stand for the needs of our constituents. So in offering this amendment today, I am saying to my colleagues, let's do our job. Let's adopt a budget that will enable us to pass a highway bill that we believe addresses the transportation and commerce needs of the Nation. The President will review that piece of legislation, and he will either sign or veto it. That is his job. That is his prerogative. But now is not the time to back away from the country's transportation needs.

When the roll is called on this amendment, Senators will be faced with a stark choice. They can either vote for the level of highway spending that they received in last year's highway bill or they can resign their constituents to ever worsening congestion.

I thank the Chair and implore my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

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

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

Mr. President, I oppose the taxation of Social Security benefits. Nevertheless, deficits continue to rise to alarming levels, and the tax cuts authorized by this budget resolution will worsen those deficits significantly. I urge the Finance Committee to pay for any tax cuts included in the reconciliation bill authorized by this budget resolution.

In 1993, Congress was at it again, and that year the Clinton tax was passed. The Clinton tax allows 85 percent of a senior's Social Security Benefit to be taxed if their income is above $34,000 for a single and $44,000 for a couple.

The additional money this tax raises doesn't even go to help Social Security's solvency--instead it goes into the Medicare program.

I was in Congress in 1993, and I fought with many of my colleagues against the Clinton tax. Unfortunately, we lost that fight and the tax went into place.

Some people may argue that this is a tax only on so-called ``rich'' seniors, but that just isn't the case. In fact, the income thresholds both for the 50 percent tax and the 85 percent tax haven't changed since they were first enacted back in 1983 and 1993.

A lot has changed in the last two decades, and more and more seniors are being affected by these taxes. In fact, it

is estimated that over 15 million beneficiaries pay taxes on their Social Security benefits.

Eleven million of these pay taxes on up to 85 percent of their Social Security benefit.

On one hand, we tell seniors to plan and save for retirement, and on the other we tax them for doing just that. In the past, there have been efforts by members of Congress--including myself--to remove the Clinton tax.

Today, the amendment I am introducing finally takes steps to repeal the Clinton tax. The amendment provides additional money under reconciliation so that this tax can be rolled back.

This means that the 85 percent tax tier would be eliminated and the maximum amount of Social Security benefits that could be taxed would be 50 percent.

This amendment will allow millions of seniors to keep more of their Social Security benefits in their pocket. Some of us have been trying to undo this tax for years, and this amendment finally gives us an opportunity to do that.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to end this unfair tax on seniors and their Social Security benefits.

Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill because it is a dangerously reckless way to deal with some very serious issues.

The Committee on the Judiciary was supposed to have a hearing to examine this legislation, or rather another piece of legislation on this subject. This bill was introduced only a few hours ago. That hearing today was canceled and then we were told that this bill would be brought up.

We are dealing with some of the most difficult issues likely to come before this Congress, end of life issues, discerning the wishes of those unable to speak for themselves, ensuring due process and a fair and careful fact finding process.

Does this legislation do the job, or does it make matters worse? Has anyone looked closely at this bill? Have we

had a hearing? Have we had a markup? Has anyone had a chance to look at the competence of its drafting, at the effects of its language? No.

There is no way to make these judgments easy, even when the expressed desires of the patients are clear and unambiguous. Where there is disagreement on the medical facts or on the wishes of the patient, these cases can be heart rending, and sometimes bitter, beyond the comprehension of those who have been fortunate enough not to have to make those decisions.

Unfortunately, we have no choice. Even a decision to do nothing is a decision with consequences. Someone eventually will have to make that decision, either the patient or someone on behalf of the patient. In a dispute, a court must make the final call. I am grateful that burden has not fallen on my shoulders.

So what does this bill do? It would place the Federal judge and then Federal appellate judges in the middle of a case, after State courts, doctors, family members, counselors and clergy have struggled with that case perhaps for years. After everything is over, everything determined, everything adjudicated, and the participants finally sighing a sigh of relief that it is over, then a Federal judge jumps in.

It does not deal just with feeding tubes. It would allow intervention in any decision affecting any kind of medical care. Read the bill. It even says that the cause of action does not include a claim or cause of action in which no party disputes and the courts find that the incapacitated person while having capacity executed a written directive, et cetera.

What does that mean? It means that after someone writes a living will and says I do not want to be resuscitated, or do not use painful treatment beyond a certain point or whatever, and after the courts in that State have found that that is what happened, that that is what the person meant and that those instructions are to be followed, some busybody from outside can now come in and start the process all over again, notwithstanding the fact finding in the State courts, because we do not trust State courts any more. We do not trust the elected State courts, we want the unelected Federal judges that we normally excoriate in this Chamber. Now suddenly they are trustworthy and we want to come and say they should start a whole new proceeding after everything is over and drag the case on, to the anguish of the family members, for another few years.

This bill allows a large number of people, not just the spouse or a relative, to intervene in these cases, years into the proceeding, or even after everyone thought the proceeding was finished. Even if the incapacitated person has executed a written advance directive, any party can drag the matter into Federal court simply by ``disagreeing.'' That is what the bill says.

Do we have no respect for families? Do we have no respect for the carefully established procedures our State legislatures and courts have set up to wrestle with these difficult situations? Do we have no interest in writing a law for the whole country that might actually do the job right?

Unfortunately, the leadership is determined to vote on this important life or death issue without giving the Members of this House the opportunity to actually look at the issue or even read the bill or to think about it.

These things should not be done in haste tonight. That may be par for the course these days, but it is irresponsible and shows real contempt for the families who will have to live with this.

If you think this is the only way to prevent the disconnection of Terri Schaivo's feeding tube, that we should not legislate this way, we should give Members the opportunity to read bills, we should not ride roughshod over State judiciaries, but here we have an emergency because the case is coming down right away in Florida, consider this: The Florida legislature is considering its own legislation on this matter. There is no need to enact radical legislation unconsidered for the whole country just for this one case. Florida, for better or worse, is addressing it.

We should take back this bill and look at it carefully. People should at least read it. We should hold hearings. We should get expert witnesses. We should tighten up the drafting so that not any busybody can come and insert himself or herself into a family's anguish. We owe American families that much.

I urge that this bill not be passed tonight, and that we stop, look, listen and think.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the State of Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

(Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Madam Speaker, the phrase that the distinguished chairman just read is a catch-all phrase. If a person thinks a court in a State is depriving someone of civil rights they can go into Federal court under a section 1983 action and say that there is an alleged deprivation of Federal rights under current law.

This is far broader. What we have heard from the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida about the facts of the case are compelling, but I would remind everybody this bill is way beyond the facts of this case.

It establishes for any interested person, someone who has a significant relationship with the incapacitated person, whatever that means, no definition, a right to come in, overturn what the courts have decided, overturn what the family has decided, what she has decided and subject that family to the agony of perhaps years of further litigation.

Maybe that has to be done in some cases, I do not know, but this kind of slapdash legislative procedure with no hearing, no consideration, no real understanding of what this bill does in cases far beyond Terri Schaivo should not be on this House floor tonight, and I urge a ``no'' vote.