Floor Statements

Mr. President, the problem with the Enzi bill is laid out in great detail in a report filed by the minority of the HELP Committee. This is not a question of my not liking the bill, it is not a question of Democrats versus Republicans, it is a question of the bill not being good. It is not a good bill, as indicated by 41 attorneys general. Forty-one attorneys general have signed letters saying the Enzi bill is not good for their States. These attorneys general are from Democratic States and Republican States. Insurance commissioners from around the country have acknowledged that the bill is not a good bill. The bill is opposed by 206 different advocacy groups and health care organizations, disability groups, and professional organizations.

For example, we know that the American Association of Retired People opposes this legislation. I was able to speak to Mr. Novelli a couple of times about this bill while it was moving through the system, and AARP believes the bill is very hurtful to senior citizens, as well as the Small Business Majority, the National Health Council, and the Lance Armstrong Foundation. As I said, more than 200 different organizations think this legislation is bad for the American people.

I have been led to believe that when this bill is brought to the floor, the 30 hours doesn't expire postcloture on the motion to proceed until sometime this afternoon. We have agreed to go to the bill at an earlier time. But it is not going to give the people in our country the opportunity to move forward on progressive, strong legislation. We will be stuck with the Enzi bill, and AARP doesn't think it is going to go anyplace. The amendments will be controlled by Senator Enzi. If he likes the amendment, he will allow us to offer it. If he doesn't, he won't. I submit that is not the way we should move forward on legislation brought forward during Health Care Week dealing with health care reform.

There are many issues related to health care we need to deal with. There are issues that are so fundamental to what is going on in the country today, and we believe the proposal put forward by Senator Lincoln from Arkansas, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, and of course a person who has worked very hard on this legislation for months, Senator Durbin, should be the legislation we debate. But it will not be. We should have the opportunity to offer amendments relating to postponing the May 15 cutoff line of the eligibility for Medicare drug benefits. That is not going to be allowed.

We should be able to offer legislation dealing with the ability of Medicare to be competitive and bid for drugs at a lower price. That won't be able to be offered.

We should be able to offer an amendment dealing with stem cell research, giving hope to millions of Americans. We won't be able to do that. That is unfortunate.

Walking into the Chamber today, I was asked by someone: Tell us what you stand for. I think, rather than what I stand for, what we stand for as a minority, it is who we stand for. I think that is the direction we should be focusing: Who do we stand for?

There are lots of people we stand for. We stand for parents with no health care. We stand for those people with maladies who are crying out for some research on stem cells so we can move forward finding cures for these diseases--Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes.

We stand for children who are attending failing schools because the Bush administration refuses to put money into the schools that needs it. It is reported today that very soon there will be 10,000 schools in America that will be failing. I don't think that speaks well. Why are they failing? It is because of this Leave No Child Behind Act that the President pushed so hard.

We stand for the soccer mom who, today, someplace, is going to fill up her vehicle with gasoline and find the price is prohibitive. Rather than filling up her tank, she will fill it half full,

enough to get through maybe the rest of this week, because the cost of gasoline is so high.

We stand for the high school graduates putting off being able to go to college because they simply can't afford the tuition. During the last 5\1/2\ years of this administration, college costs have gone up 40 percent. Student aid has been cut. Pell grants have been cut.

We stand for the guardsman who is concerned because he has been called back for the second tour of duty in Iraq. Reading the Washington Post today, I find that two Nevada soldiers were killed in Iraq yesterday, both from Las Vegas, a 46-year-old man and a 26-year-old man--killed yesterday.

We stand for the grandparents who are concerned about the debt this country is accumulating, recognizing their grandchildren will be forced to pay this debt. How big is the debt? During the 5\1/2\ years President Bush has been President, the national debt has almost doubled, now approaching $10 trillion. We just raised the debt ceiling to $9 trillion, and through some shuffling in the Republican-dominated House they have, in the last few days, raised that to $10 trillion.

We stand for senior citizens who are unable to have the proper medicine to take care of themselves.

The part that is so concerning is that we are doing nothing in this Congress to address the issues. There are editorials running around the country today talking about the majority, the Republicans, not raising issues of any kind because the debate is one they know they can't win. We need to be focusing on the high cost of energy and high cost of education. We need to focus on global warming, and we are not. It is being ignored because in the minds in the White House, it doesn't exist. We need to focus on this staggering debt. Remember, during the last 3 years of the Clinton administration, we paid down the debt. We were spending less money than we were taking in. That is certainly not the case now.

We are going to have a so-called debate on health care this week, but it is a so-called debate. It is really not a debate because we are being prohibited from offering amendments of significance. We are going to be forced to focus only on the Enzi legislation, which is a flawed bill. It is so flawed that it took the minority in the HELP Committee about 250 pages to outline the problems with this legislation. Usually minority reports are very short. This one is not. It is not because the consequences of the Enzi bill are so significant. This report looks at every State and indicates how every State is hurt as a result of the Enzi legislation.

I look forward to maybe a change of heart. Maybe there will be the ability for us to offer amendments. That doesn't appear to be the case. I hope that it is the case, that we will be allowed to offer amendments. That is the way we should deal with Health Care Week and not be stymied at offering amendments to this legislation, amendments that would really help--help those people who need help, not only with the hope of curing dread diseases but with the hope of 46 million people in America who have no health insurance, the senior citizens who hope they will be able to get prescription drugs at a lower rate, but because of the Medicare bill passed by this Republican-dominated town, Medicare cannot even negotiate for lower prices. They have to go to Rite Aid and buy their drugs like everyone else. HMOs can negotiate to lower prices because the legislation was directed toward managed care, not those Medicare recipients who badly need help.

Mr. President, I would simply mention to the distinguished leader before he leaves that a week ago, I came to the floor and talked about immigration and indicated that we would be willing to go forward--10 amendments on each side--and with the direction where I think we should go on conference. I hope the leader will understand that time is running out. We need to be able to do this.

We are terribly concerned, even more concerned based on the statements

from the House last week. Chairman Sensenbrenner gave a speech last week talking about why he had, in his bill, his legislation, at the request of the White House--I am sure the White House has backed off on this; I certainly hope so--but making people who are here who are undocumented, felons. He gave some illustrations that were not very good. He talked about, Japan doesn't have many immigrants that come illegally. That is right, that is because it is an island. They would have to swim there or come in on an airplane or boat. They don't have the mass migration problems we have.

I hope the leader, with the many things he has to do, would understand that we have, after this week, only 2 weeks left in this legislative session. The leader stated we are going to try to finish this before Memorial Day. To do that, we are going to have to get on that bill. If we have all these amendments, it is going to take a lot of time.

Mr. President, people will have other thoughts on medical malpractice legislation as they come to the floor, as they cast their vote. But for me, I want to make this a day to remember a wonderful woman by the name of Billie Robinson. I have handled medical malpractice cases. I want to talk about this one. I have talked about her before. I want to talk about her again. I could talk about other cases, but nothing has been so fixed in my mind, as I prepared for today, as Billie Robinson.

I really didn't know Billie Robinson when she had all of her faculties; I only knew her after she had this surgery. Billie Robinson came from my hometown of Searchlight. She was like some other people in Searchlight, she had basically no education. She was a hard worker. She worked very hard physically. She developed headaches that were difficult for her to describe, but she did her best and went to a series of physicians. Every physician she went to told her she drank too much and she should lay off the booze and she would be better.

She ultimately went to her fifth or sixth doctor, and the doctor decided maybe he should look and see what is inside her head and ordered some x rays and other diagnostic tests and found she had a tremendously large tumor in her head causing these blinding headaches. Her activities, her actions were not a result of alcoholism; they were the result of her head having a tumor causing her these horrible headaches. And yes, she did drink. She drank everything she could get her hands on to try to relieve that pain. A simple test early on would have determined what was wrong with Billie Robinson.

As I said, when I saw her, she had already had the surgery. She didn't speak well. She would speak with very slurred speech, but you could tell this woman was a good woman. She had a good heart. She had no alternative, in an effort to live her remaining days in some dignity, but to try to seek some type of redress for the negligence of those doctors who had seen her, and she did get some satisfaction. It was not necessary that we go to a jury because those doctors who had attempted to treat her realized they had not done their job properly. So she lived out her life in a condition that was not appropriate.

Had she had that surgery years before when the tumor was small, she would have been normal. It was not a malignant tumor. By the time they were able to operate, there had been so much damage because of the growth of the tumor that she had significant brain damage. She was able to buy herself a new mobile home and lived a quiet, peaceful life in Searchlight.

Today, I remember Billie Robinson. Had this legislation been in effect that the majority is trying to pass today, if it had been in effect then, Billie Robinson would not have been able to buy herself a new mobile home. She worked for minimum wage almost all of her life. She would not have been able to have recovered compensation for the pain and suffering, to any degree, that she went through. She basically would not have had much.

Today, I rise in protest. I rise to object to these Republican bills, these two bills that are put here as a result of the insurance industry. These measures before the Senate do not represent a serious attempt to improve health care or the civil justice system in our country. Moving to these bills is a tired political exercise, and the Senate should reject this political exercise out of hand. To think, with American consumers paying more than $3 a gallon for gas--the record is in San Diego, $3.40 today; all over Nevada, it is more than $3; the average across the country is $2.95--college tuition moving out of the reach of the middle class; to think, with the number of the Iraq war dead now pushing 2,500; to think, with immigration now being a security crisis unresolved; to think, with our country's deficit soon approaching $9 trillion; to think, with 46 million Americans lacking health care coverage, that we are moving to bills that are unnecessary and will go nowhere? What a waste of the Senate's time.

It is wrong that we are doing this. We could more profitably use this time on any of the issues about which I just spoke. We could more properly use the scarce time remaining to address any of these urgent challenges facing America's families. I haven't even mentioned energy. We could do that. And we could address the real health care crisis, not this ``make do'' health care crisis.

Both of these bills the Senate will consider today contain the same one-size-fits-all cap on damages. These bills have been rejected time and time again, and rightfully so. Both contain the same unjustified protections for hospitals, rest homes, HMOs, and, of course, insurance companies. In fact, these proposals are virtually identical to legislation we turned aside three times the last Congress. These bills are the same old song, and the votes will be the same old dance: Democrats protecting the American consumer from these huge companies.

The top of this company pyramid, of course, is the insurance company, then hospital companies, extended-care facilities, rest homes. Even though these measures would dramatically rewrite the tort laws of all 50 States and even though they would denigrate the legal rights of countless Americans, they have undergone no serious legislative review in this Congress.

Don't be fooled by the bill numbers--S. 22 and S. 23--they are simply placeholders for legislative text that was only formally introduced last Wednesday. In fact, the text of these bills was not even available until a couple of days ago.

The majority leader used a procedural technique called rule XIV that brings these bills straight to the Senate floor to avoid consideration of these bills by either the Judiciary Committee or the Health Committee. There has not been a single committee hearing, not a single witness, not a single opportunity to amend, not a single opportunity to compromise or negotiate. With this insurance industry legislation before this body, every step of the legislative process has been abandoned.

Why has the majority proceeded in this manner? Because this is not a serious exercise in legislating. It is a political stunt being performed for the sole purpose of allowing Republicans to go back to their special interest friends led by the insurance industry and say: Look what we have tried to do to help, even though they should not be fooled by these transparent theatrics because that is all it is.

The majority is short-circuiting the committee process because of the illusion of medical malpractice crisis. It is an illusion. It doesn't exist. Medical malpractice crisis? No. Health care crisis? Yes. There is a health crisis, but it has nothing to do with tort laws. It has nothing to do with the Billie Robinsons of this world. It has nothing to do with the people out there who are struggling to be able to take their kid to see the doctor, to be able to buy prescription drugs. It is a crisis when 46 million Americans have no health insurance, it is a crisis when health insurance is too costly for the average American. It is a crisis when medical errors are the sixth leading cause of death in America. But not a single provision in this legislation will provide health insurance to the uninsured, lower health care costs, or make patients safer. In reality, the whole premise of the medical malpractice crisis is unfounded.

Over the weekend, I read a book. It is an insightful book entitled ``The Medical Malpractice Myth,'' written by Tom Baker. Who is Tom Baker? Tom Baker is not a trial lawyer, he is not a lawyer who specializes in medical malpractice cases. Tom Baker's father and father-in-law are physicians. Tom Baker is a professor of law at the University of Connecticut School of Law. He is director of the Insurance Law Center at that university. He is not affiliated in any way with trial lawyers.

In this book, Professor Baker methodically debunks the most common myths in the medical malpractice debate.

Myth No. 1: ``Lawyers, not doctors, cause malpractice.''

Professor Baker presents numerous studies demonstrating that the real problem is too much malpractice, not too much litigation. Of course, most doctors are skilled professionals and don't commit malpractice, but just as there are a few rotten apples in every basket, there are a small number of unskilled, uncaring, and negligent physicians in every State. Unfortunately, they don't always come to the attention of the licensing boards, and some move from State to State to avoid disciplinary action. These rotten-apple doctors should be held accountable, and the victims of their negligence deserve to be compensated, just like Billie Robinson deserves to be compensated.

Myth No. 2: ``Lawsuits make health care unaffordable.''

That is a myth.

Professor Baker demonstrates that medical malpractice rates are based more on the cyclical nature of the stock market than on malpractice verdicts. When insurance companies' investments lose money, the companies raise their rates which they charge doctors to compensate for their loss.

There is no better example that exists than what St. Paul did in the Las Vegas, NV, area. In fact, they had a deal. If the Clark County Medical Association referred a doctor to them, they gave a kickback to the Clark County Medical Association. They had almost all of the medical malpractice insurance in the Las Vegas area. What happened? There was a general lapse in the economy, the stock market wasn't doing well, real estate wasn't doing well, and they were in big trouble because they do not make their money with their premiums. They invest the premiums. That is where they make the money. When they make bad investments, that is when they come in and start talking about how unaffordable medical malpractice is. As a result, caps on damages do not reduce insurance premiums in the long run.

For the most part, insurance rates have not gone down in those States which have capped damages. Nevada is a good example. After the self- imposed crisis that St. Paul created, the Governor held a special session of the legislature and they set a cap of $350,000 on pain and suffering damages. OB-GYN malpractice premiums are 37 percent higher than in States without caps, general surgery premiums are 52 percent higher, and internal medicine premiums are 44 percent higher. In fact, since 2001, claims paid by Nevada's largest insurer have dropped 16.7 percent while premiums have increased almost 33 percent.

From 2000 to 2005, the net payouts of malpractice insurers declined 3.1 percent. But over the same period in which payouts were declining, net insurance premiums were increasing by 93.2 percent. So claims decreased, but the companies more than doubled their premiums.

Even if caps on damages did affect malpractice premiums, there is no reason to believe that caps would make health care more affordable overall.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, malpractice costs amount to less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. If a reduction of 25 to 30 percent in malpractice costs were attainable, it would lower health care costs by only 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent.

Myth No. 3: ``Lawsuits deny access to care.''

That is a myth. It is only a myth.

Despite the century-old complaint that lawsuits drive doctors from their practices, the medical profession continues to grow each year, and applications to medical schools have increased--and they are increasing right now. The number of physicians in the United States has increased every year since 1996, from 738,000 in 1996 to almost 885,000 in 2004--less than 2 years ago.

In 2003, the nonpartisan General Accounting Office surveyed five States repeatedly cited by the American Medical Association as examples of communities suffering from shortages of care because doctors are fleeing. The report concluded that such claims are widely overstated, and I quote, ``Many of the reported physician actions and hospital- based service reductions were not substantiated or did not widely affect access to health care.'' Where doctor shortages exist, they are due to population shifts and the reluctance of doctors to practice in rural and low-income areas.

In any event, caps on damages do not change the availability of physicians. States without caps on damages have more doctors per capita and 14 percent more active physicians than States with caps on damages. For example, the number of OB-GYNs in the United States has increased by nearly 25 percent--from 33,000 in 1990 to 42,000 in 2004. But in Nevada, where we have caps on damages, there are 27 percent fewer OB- GYNs than in States that don't have caps.

Myth No. 4: ``Lawsuits cause doctors to practice wasteful defensive medicine.''

In his book, Dr. Professor Baker devotes a whole chapter to the goods on defensive medicine. He cites reports from the Congressional Budget Office and the former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment that question estimates of defensive medicine. The Congressional Budget Office specifically concludes that any savings from reducing defensive medicine would be small at best.

Myth No. 5: ``Most lawsuits are frivolous.''

Anyone who listened to the radio today heard a report that this isn't true. Take one look at the book ``The Faces of Neglect Behind the Closed Doors of Nursing Homes''--and you'll see case after case of neglect in these institutions, case after case, horrible pictures of things that were done to these men and women in rest homes. If this legislation passes, don't worry about holding them accountable anymore.

Not every lawsuit has merit, but the tort system has plenty of mechanisms for weeding out frivolous claims. According to Professor Baker, ``[m]ost undeserving claims disappear before trial; most trials end in a verdict for the doctor; doctors almost never pay claims out of their own pockets; and

hospitals and insurance companies refuse to pay claims unless there is good evidence of malpractice.'' And that is an understatement.

At the same time, the assertion that there exists an ``explosion'' in medical malpractice payouts in recent years is simply untrue. The average verdict size is relatively low and has remained stable for many years. A study by Americans for Insurance Reform found payouts have been virtually flat since the mid-1980s. As it is, Americans use the civil justice system as a last resort, going to court after all their efforts have failed.

For these reasons, Professor Baker concludes that the medical malpractice crisis is a product of exaggeration and distortion.

But even if there were a medical malpractice problem that needed to be cured, these bills are not the right medicine. They are riddled with major flaws. Let me talk about a few of them.

First, they would impose an unreasonably low $250,000 cap on pain and suffering. Proponents of these bills claim that the cap is $750,000, but in the typical case where there is a single negligent party, the cap remains $250,000. In cases where the wrong limb is amputated or a patient is paralyzed or a mother loses a child, $250,000, I submit, is grossly inadequate. And it is even worse under S. 23. Under this legislation, the life of a woman rendered sterile by gross negligence of an OB-GYN is worth less than that of a man mistakenly sterilized.

This is bad legislation.

Second, these bills discriminate against women in more ways than that. By capping pain and suffering while simultaneously preserving full compensation for lost wages and salary, these bills devalue the worth of homemakers and stay-at-home parents. For instance, a homemaker whose reproductive system is destroyed by negligent treatment would suffer only noneconomic losses which are arbitrarily capped by this bill.

At the same time, the bills limit punitive damages, a change which disproportionally affects women patients. Punitive damages are very rare in malpractice cases, but the cases where they do occur often involve sexual abuse of a female patient. Punitives would be virtually impossible to receive under this legislation.

Third, the bills unjustifiably protect large corporations that own nursing homes from liability when they abuse or kill their patients. The National Citizens Coalition for Nursing Home Reform released this book, I mentioned earlier, ``The Faces of Neglect; Behind the Closed Doors of Nursing Homes,'' which profiles the heartbreaking experiences of 36 Americans who have suffered from abuse and neglect while in long- term facilities. These are only a few cases of hundreds and hundreds. The book includes the story of Barbara Salerno, a Reno, NV, woman whose father died due to the neglect of a nursing home. It is a tragic case.

The numbers of seniors who could be hurt by this bill are staggering. According to the GAO, 300,000 elderly and disabled residents live in chronically deficient nursing homes where they are ``at risk of harm due to woefully deficient care.'' Nationwide, 26.2 percent of nursing homes were cited for violations related to quality of care by regulatory agencies in 2004 alone, yet this bill gives sweeping liability protections to these negligent facilities.

Fourth, these bills are an affront to federalism. Republicans love to talk about States rights, except when they want to impose a Federal solution on all 50 States. More than half of all States have already enacted malpractice reforms, but these bills would override these State legislative decisions. Specifically, this bill preempts those States which have debated a cap on damages and decided against that step on their own.

For these reasons and many others, the pending bills are objectionable. In fact, the entire concept of medical malpractice reform is misguided. The right way to bring down medical malpractice insurance premiums is to reform the insurance industry, which is badly in need of oversight.

A study commissioned by the Center for Justice and Democracy showed that insurance premiums more than doubled between 2000 and 2004 even though claims for pay-outs remained essentially flat. Given this price gouging, it is little wonder that the profits of the Nation's five largest medical malpractice insurers rose by nearly 18 percent last year, more than double the ``Fortune 500'' average.

We need to strengthen Federal oversight of insurance industry practices that contribute to these rises in malpractice premiums. Unfortunately, the insurance industry enjoys almost complete immunity from Federal antitrust laws, and using this exemption, insurance companies can collude to set rates, resulting in higher premiums than true competition would achieve. Federal enforcement officials cannot investigate any such collusion because of this exemption.

I am embarrassed to say this law came about as a result of the Nevada Senator McCarran. The McCarran-Ferguson Act. That is, I submit, the only bad thing he did.

This act was passed to give a few years of relief to the insurance industry. Now, some 70 years later, insurance companies are the only businesses--other than Major League Baseball--not subject to antitrust laws. This rationale for this exemption has long since passed. Insurance should be like any other business--subject to antitrust laws.

Senator Leahy's bill would accomplish this. To pretend these medical malpractice bills have anything do with making health more affordable is a cruel joke. These bills override the sound judgment of State legislatures and juries and substitute the arbitrary judgement of an insurance friendly Congress.

We should not reward insurance companies making record profits. We should help doctors by reforming the insurance industry rather than undermining the legal rights of seriously injured malpractice patients. That is what these would do.

I am going to vote against cloture. It is bad legislation. I hope that once again, we will help the American consumers and defeat these two bad bills.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad) is absent due to illness in the family.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) would vote ``nay.''

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

There being no oblection, the text of the bill was ordered to be

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

There being no oblection, the text of the bill was ordered to be

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

Mr. President, today 46 million Americans are living with no health insurance.

I am not sure everyone understands what it means to have no health insurance. We as Senators don't have a problem with that. We have insurance. I think it is very good insurance.

I can remember my parents having no health insurance when my dad worked in the mines. Once in a while he would go someplace else to work and he would have some insurance. After my dad passed away my mother had Medicare. That was the best insurance she ever had.

You would think that since I was a boy, America would have made progress in this health care problem, but it has gone the other way. More people are uninsured now than before. There is a real health care crisis in America today. The crisis can be felt in people's homes, in neighborhoods, in the workplace, and even corporate board rooms because they realize it is a problem when 46 million people have no health insurance.

Health care costs are going up and up. In all of the newspapers around America today there is an article which talks about what has happened. More people are forced to opt out of employers' insurance, the article says. A growing number of Americans who

work for companies that offer health insurance are having to turn it down. Many companies don't offer insurance, but even at those that do, people can't afford to opt into the system. Why? Because of a 42- percent jump in premiums over five years.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation said 3 million fewer U.S. workers eligible for employer-sponsored health insurance enrolled in 2003 compared with 1998.

Even where insurance is available people are not opting into it. Why? Because now it costs on average $3,481 to be able to afford this insurance for an employer-sponsored individual policy. And these statistics from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation are 3 years old.

It would be far more than that now.

Health care costs too much. Premiums are going up. Premiums have increased 70 percent since the year 2000. It has crippled businesses, including some of the stalwarts in American society such as Ford and GM. And the cost of prescription drugs is part of that.

The Medicare drug plan has been a mess, to say the least. In Nevada, a relatively small State in numbers of people, almost a half million people have no health insurance. More than 100,000 children have no health insurance in Nevada.

Then there is the fact that many diseases could be cured, which would cut down on the cost of health care, diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's. We don't know all of them for which we are looking for a cure.

Of course, we can't move forward in research because the Republican majority refuses to allow us to move forward with this crucial legislation.

We need a new direction in health care. Republicans have had 5\1/2\ years to put their arms around this crisis. But even with control of the White House, the Senate, and the House, they failed. They continue to hold in their arms the insurance industry.

Next week, Republicans have scheduled what they call a Health Care Week. This is really a mini debate in an area where we have a major crisis--the Republican approach to a national emergency is one that brings a number of questions to mind.

My first question is, Why has it taken so long even to have a mini debate?

We are about 80 percent of the way through this 109th Congress. We have spent weeks and weeks picking fights over radical judges and weeks to help big business on issues such as class actions and asbestos.

With a national emergency on health care we are going to spend a handful of days, literally. This Health Care Week is a public relations gimmick--something like the ``Mission Accomplished.''

The majority couldn't be serious about helping American people with health care and do what we are expected to do about health care in a week.

My second question is, Who do the Republicans want to help? The people getting help under this Republican majority are special interests. Not the people we have tried to break through and have the middle-class American people represented in Congress. Republicans don't have a single prescription for America's health care emergency, except that they have a cabinet full of medicine to fatten big business.

On Monday, they want to have a vote on this same, tired medical malpractice bill that we have defeated day in, day out, week in, week out, month after month, year after year.

They keep bringing them up and having them defeated. Why? Because they do not mean anything to the American people.

If we are going to do something about health care, are we going to do something that just makes the insurance industry even bigger and stronger and fatter than it now is?

That is what these medical malpractice bills do; they enrich the insurance industry and do nothing to help working Americans.

Nevada is a good example. A few years ago, we were told there was a medical malpractice ``crisis'' in Nevada. The Republican Governor called a special session of the legislature. They set caps on pain and suffering damages.

Who has benefitted? Not those people who have the wrong leg taken off in surgery, or who have been given the wrong medicine in surgery. And the doctors haven't benefitted either.

The insurance rates in Nevada haven't gone down. Let me repeat that, in the few years since that legislation passed, insurance rates have not gone down in Nevada for doctors. That ``crisis'' was something that was put forward by the insurance industry, and they have done well-- they are paying victims less but they are still charging doctors the same high premiums.

The insurance industry wants to have this benefit in every state, even the states that have refused to enact caps on damages. It's the same old story. Last Congress, the Senate rejected three times virtually identical bills--the same one-size-fits-all medical malpractice bill for the most seriously injured victims.

It's true that people make mistakes. But when you are talking about medicine, these mistakes can be very serious. Most of these mistakes aren't made in a wanton fashion. Rarely does that happen. But people make mistakes. They are negligent.

Two years ago or so, I went to Walter Reed for surgery on my left foot. They wheeled me into the operating room, and as I am laying there getting ready for the surgery. I asked the doctor and the people in attendance: Why do you have a black mark on my right foot?

They said: That is where we are going to do the surgery.

Luckily, I pointed out that they had marked the wrong foot. So they erased the black mark on my right foot and did the surgery on the left foot, the correct one.

This surgery was not life threatening to me, but it took 4 or 5 months for me to recover from the surgery to the foot that needed it, let alone if I'd have had to recover also for a foot that didn't. People make mistakes.

That is what medical malpractice is all about. Doctors make mistakes and hurt people. In our system of fairness and justice, the only way to respond is with dollars. To set these arbitrary caps to save the insurance industry is senseless and unfair.

Not one of these bills we are going to take up next week has anything to do with helping people with their health care.

One bill they claim will help small business. The others they claim will help patients and doctors. These bills will do just the opposite.

In the Orwellian world in which we find ourselves in Washington, under Republican control, whatever they say it does just the opposite. Far from helping, the measure dealing with small business health care, for example, that we will get to next week, threatens the coverage of those who have insurance now. It does nothing to extend coverage to those who need it. It gives control of our health care to the insurance companies even more. Insurers, not doctors, will decide if you get coverage and what you will be charged. That is what the legislation is about.

After these three bills, we are done with health care this year. That is enough. We have had health care week. Three bills that do nothing, and we are done with health care and on to something else.

The third question: Why is this majority refusing to consider real solutions to Americans' health care problems in their so-called health care week? I applaud my colleagues for recognizing health care deserves the Senate time. But the agenda is frightening. A Republican in the White House, both Houses of Congress controlled by Republicans-- excuses? They should have none. They have it all. But they have given America nothing.

Where, for example, is stem cell research? Where are Medicare improvements? Where is relief for the uninsured and small businesses in this country?

In one bill, sponsored by Senators Baucus, Lincoln, and Durbin, they have health care legislation in the Senate that would actually help small businesses. It would give them the ability to pool and choose from the same health care options that we as Senators have. If it is good enough for us, why don't we give everyone the same opportunity we have, and do it soon--such as next week?

Senator Leahy, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, has insurance reform legislation that brings the

insurance industry under the Federal antitrust laws. Right now, the insurance industry can conspire and fix prices and do all kinds of things other businesses cannot do because they are not subject to antitrust laws. Why is the insurance industry exempt? Because of the McCarran-Ferguson Act. I am sorry to report that a Nevada Senator by the name of Pat McCarran has his name affixed to some of the most unfair legislation this country has ever seen.

It was enacted during the height of the Depression when Senator McCarran and a man by the name of Ferguson, a Member of Congress, got together and said, let's give the insurance industry a break. We will not have the Sherman Antitrust Act apply to them.

The legislation was supposed to be in existence for a couple years, but 70-plus years, it is still in effect. Who is the biggest, most powerful industry in America? It is the insurance industry, yet they are not subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act. The only other business that isn't subject is professional baseball, major league baseball. Senator Leahy wants to change this. I support him in this. This is a real way to bring insurance premiums in line and really help doctors and health costs. Make the insurance industry subject to the same laws all other industries are subject to and premiums will go down.

What about stem cell research? We talked about that yesterday. Senator Frist said he is going to bring it up. I hope he does. I talked to him about that before. Time is running out. Every day we wait to give our scientists the tools they need is another day of suffering for millions of Americans, fearing they will never have the opportunity to have their loved ones or themselves cured of these dreaded diseases. We need this groundbreaking research. If the Government acted in the 1940s and 1950s such as the Republicans are acting today, we would not have a vaccine for polio.

Where is Medicare on the Republican agenda? After May 15th, a few days from now, any people who have not signed up for this flawed plan have to wait until next year. And next year when they sign up, they have to pay a penalty. They cannot sign up in the meantime. They have to wait until next year.

Five months after this program has gone into effect, it is still mired in confusion and red tape.

A real health care week would fix Medicare's problems, extend the May 15 deadline, it might eliminate penalty from the President's drug program, and include a repeal of Medicare's prohibition from negotiating with drug companies for cheaper prescription drug prices.

Isn't it hard to comprehend that Medicare cannot bargain for lower prices for the drugs they purchase? CVS can. Rite-Aid can but not Medicare. Why? Because when that bill was written, they wanted to give an unfair advantage to the drug companies. And they gave it to them.

America's health care crisis is real. Unfortunately, the majority's commitment to solving it is not. Next week, as we did with gas prices, Republican actions will tell us they care about health care, as they cared about gasoline prices. The best they could come up with was a $100 rebate which has been panned in every newspaper and by every commentator in America the last 10 days.

It is not what they say they stand for, it is whom they stand for that matters. And it is not for the American people. With their health care week, the majority is making it very clear they stand with insurance companies, not the American people.

Mr. President, I very much appreciate the statement of the distinguished majority leader. We are very fortunate in the Senate to have as our Chaplain a man who has certainly earned the right to pray for our country, an admiral in the Navy, head of the chaplain service in the United States Navy, Dr. Barry Black.

I try to be here every day, as the majority leader, to listen to the prayers Dr. Black has prepared for the Senate and the country. They are always very good. I am grateful to him for what he pronounces through his prayers for us. Again I appreciate the statement of the majority leader today.

Mr. President, growing up in the little town of Searchlight, there are a number of things that stand out in my mind. One is I remember so vividly a man by the name of Elwin Kent. Elwin was a friend of my father's. They grew up together. But Elwin as a little boy was stricken with polio. Elwin was very deformed. He walked with a very significant limp, and he had on his back a huge hump. I don't know, but it was at least a foot. It stuck out his back about a foot. He was a very handsome man, but he was terribly handicapped.

I came as a boy to realize how he got sick because when I was growing up, the scourge was Elwin's disease, polio. Infantile paralysis we called it. I worried about that as most young people of my age did. In Searchlight, as I was growing up we had no cases, but that didn't prevent my worrying about the disease.

My wife and I a short time ago--a matter of a month or so ago--were surprised when we got in the mail a letter sent to me in Searchlight, NV. I opened the letter, and it was from a girl I had heard about from my wife, in our conversations, with whom she had spent her early days. That was maybe in the second grade. Two little girls. My wife used to tell me about her red-haired friend Gail and how much she cared about her.

Gail found out where Landra, my wife, had gone. She learned that I was serving in the Senate, and she heard that I was from Searchlight and took a chance and wrote that letter.

The reason I mention that letter, which was such a surprise and made my wife feel so good, is that one of the things Landra remembers about Gail, in addition to her bright red hair, is the fact that as a little girl she had polio and was taken out of school and placed in a hospital, as my wife remembers, in an iron lung. So, of course, my wife growing up worried about that. But Gail was gone, and she didn't really know how her life turned out.

Without belaboring the point, these two women who had known each other 50 years ago were able to spend time on the telephone. It was as if they had never been separated.

So Elwin Kent and Gail Randolph growing up contracted infantile paralysis. It was there. It was something we worried about, as did all people of our vintage.

Today is different. We have been able, through science, to eradicate polio in most every place in the world, but I still receive letters in my Senate offices from people who are concerned about other issues. I will read three of these letters addressed to me:

. . . My son 22 years old was in a diving accident just two

weeks after graduating from high school and is now a

quadriplegic. So instead of heading off to college on a

soccer scholarship that autumn, he found himself being fitted

for a wheelchair and a life of total dependency on others. .

. .while they [stem cells] may not cure him to the point of

walking again, they will certainly provide him with an

opportunity to improve the quality of his life. He wants to

be able to feed himself, brush his own teeth, wash his hands

and face when he wants to . . . I know you support stem cell

research, but I just wanted to give you my support and the

support of our entire family as you fight the fight for those

who can't fight for themselves. . . .

Mr. President, I want the record to reflect that I will use leader time so I don't take time from Senators on this side of the aisle. So I am using leader time.

Mr. President, I have another letter from Yerington, NV. Here is what it says:

I am asking you again to do your best for my son and the

millions of others who need a cure for diabetes. . . . My son

was in the hospital yesterday. . . .I can't tell you how hard

and painful it is to see your son like that. . . .my wife and

I would give our lives to ensure that our son can beat

diabetes. . . .The Senate will soon vote on the stem cell

bill that you still support. Please try to change the minds

of those that are not for it.

Then one final letter from a man in Las Vegas:

I have amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). . . . my family

doesn't want me to leave them. At the least, my family wants

some hope that science will be allowed to use all means

available to them, to try to find some treatment that will

extend life until a cure is found. I would like to have those

people who are opposed to federal assistance for embryonic

stem cell research for therapeutic purposes, explain to my

family why they are being denied hope that might be available

if the federal government funds all reasonable medical

research for my illness and those other illnesses that today

provide no hope for the future.

Mr. President, these families are not asking for anything except hope--hope--for a better future for them and their loved ones.

Stem cell research holds a promise for medical breakthroughs. As former First Lady Nancy Reagan said so clearly, vividly, and who watched with great courage as her husband's Alzheimer's overtook this good man, she said:

I just don't see how we can turn our backs on this . . . We have lost so much time already. She gave this statement in 2004:

I just really can't bear to lose any more time.

Unfortunately, more than 2 years have passed since Nancy Reagan said this, and this Republican-controlled Congress has been unable and unwilling to reach agreement on how to expand the President's restrictive stem cell policy that is hindering scientific progress toward possible cures and treatments for a wide variety of diseases and conditions.

We are rapidly approaching the 1-year anniversary of the date of the House of Representatives passing H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This act would expand President Bush's 2001 policy for Federal funding for stem cell research and permit Federal researchers at NIH, the National Institutes of Health, which has the capability of the strongest oversight in the world, to finally explore the many possibilities stem cell research holds for America.

Over the past year, I have repeatedly asked the majority leader to find time to consider this bill which has a bipartisan majority of the Senate supporting it. My request for action has been met by delay and inaction. One year may not seem like a lot to people, especially in the Senate--we seem to have our days, weeks, months, and years run together--but 1 year is an eternity if someone you love is suffering from a condition where stem cell research, according to the experts, can offer help.

There are a number of very important issues this body ought to consider this session. I say, Mr. President, none--none--even though we have deficit problems, problems with our environment, education, health care, the war in Iraq--I say nothing is more important to the American people than legislation that could provide medical breakthroughs that would benefit millions--millions--of Americans. We can certainly do better than what we have done. We can do better for the Nevadans whose letters I have read.

I can see in my mind a man who was the chief executive officer of Nevada Power, the largest power company in Nevada, who contracted Lou Gehrig's disease. This young man lived 18 months--very difficult months. People are counting on the promise of this groundbreaking research. The passage of the House stem cell bill on May 24 of last year was a rare victory for bipartisanship here. It is my hope that we will embrace the same spirit of bipartisanship in the Senate and pass this legislation.

Immediately after the House passed its stem cell bill, I spoke with the majority leader about the need to take up

this crucial legislation as soon as possible. At that time, Dr. Frist assured me that we would consider the stem cell bill in the Senate by July of last year. By the end of July of last year, the majority leader still hadn't scheduled debate on the stem cell bill. So I moved to take up and pass the House bill by unanimous consent. Dr. Frist objected to this request but delivered a courageous speech the next day in which he expressed support for Federal funding for expanded embryonic stem cell research.

In that statement, the majority leader said, ``The potential of stem cell research to save lives and human suffering deserves our increased energy and focus.'' Yet when we returned after the August recess of last year, the majority leader still could not find time to debate this important legislation. He found time for the Republicans, as the leaders of American churches have said, for a moral budget, he found time for drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and more deficit spending, but still no time for keeping hope alive with the promise of stem cell research.

In December, just 5 months ago, the majority leader asked consent to take up and pass the House cord blood bill. Well, these were supposed to be joined together. We reluctantly said OK. We said we will do this and then we will move to the bill that we want, the one that passed the House. Well, at that time he expressed--he meaning Senator Frist--again his commitment to the stem cell bill. Once again, we were not allowed to move to that bill. Instead, we passed the cord blood bill in exchange for a commitment to consider the stem cell bill early in this session.

Three months after he made that commitment, I raised the issue again, and I asked that he schedule time for the Senate to consider this issue prior to the 1-year anniversary passage of the House bill. Unfortunately, this request met the same fate as my previous requests.

Two months have passed since my last exchange with Senator Frist, and he has yet to provide the Senate with an opportunity to pass this important legislation. Even as he announced his plans for a Health Week in the Senate sometime this month, he made it clear that stem cell research would not be part of his plan. Today is May 4, and we are fast approaching the 1-year anniversary of the House passing H.R. 810 and the start of Health Week. Still, no stem cell legislation.

For all of these reasons and many more, I am sending the majority leader a letter signed by 40 Democrats asking the majority leader to make H.R. 810 a priority during this Health Week. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, if we are truly committed to lowering the cost of health care in our country, we need to invest in medical research that has the potential to combat life-threatening and chronic diseases. Stem cell research shows tremendous promise. Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research will allow our Nation to lead the world in this research and ensure that stem cell research is conducted with the strongest oversight in the world. When it comes to the possibility of finding cures, we cannot leave our best and brightest researchers with their hands tied, and we cannot deny Americans the hope of eventually finding a cure for a wide range of illnesses.

The House dealt with this issue, and we should do the same. I hope the majority leader will find this legislation important enough to consider as part of Health Week, and I will work with him in any way possible to schedule this to move forward before May 24, the 1-year anniversary of the passage by the House of this most important bill, a bill which gives hope to millions of Americans who, as indicated in these letters, are losing hope.

Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?

The Senator from Illinois and I are about the same age. Do you remember as a boy being worried about polio?

And do you remember the relief that was given to us as boys, young boys, when a cure was found? They could give us a shot. We knew we wouldn't go into an iron lung or have a hump on our back like my friend Elwin, whom I love almost like an uncle--not almost, like an uncle.

Does the Senator acknowledge that all these people who suffer from Lou Gehrig's disease and Parkinson's and diabetes and all of these other diseases, that they have been told by the foremost scientists around the world that there is hope for them, that they would have the same relief we had when we learned there was a cure for polio?

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question?

Does the Senator acknowledge that Jonas Salk and others doing this research had the full support of the Federal Government every step of the way on this very delicate, deliberate, tough path they followed to find a cure?

Mr. President, we cannot hear what is going on.

Madam President, at the beginning of this year, we found a situation in Washington that was very uncomfortable. The Chair will recall, as all members recall, the majority leader in the House of Representatives had been convicted, within a period of a year, of three ethics violations. He was under indictment. For the first time in 135 years, someone in the White House was indicted. The person in charge of contracting, Mr. Safavian, was led away literally in handcuffs as a result of his sweetheart deals with many people, including the infamous Jack Abramoff.

We had many stories written about the K Street Project: If you were a trade association or a business that wanted to hire a Democrat, you had to get clearance from the K Street leaders. It was a situation that was very uncomfortable for everyone, as it should have been.

The culmination of all of this was learning Duke Cunningham had taken more than $2 million in bribes.

I try today to express my opposition and grave disappointment of the lobbying and ethics reform bill that the House of Representatives is expected to pass today. This is a bill pushed by the Republican leadership in the House. It is simply not much of anything. This House reform legislation is another example of the Orwellian world in which my friends in the majority live, I am sorry to say, starting with the President himself. Whatever he says, believe just the opposite.

The Clear Skies bill led to more pollution. The Healthy Forests Initiative, clear-cutting the forests, is damaging our forests. The No Child Left Behind Act has left millions of children behind. The Budget Deficit Reduction Act increases the deficit. And now they are lobbying the Accountability and Transparency Act, which has the potential to wipe transparency out of the political process.

House Republicans have completely abandoned the idea of reforming Washington. Instead, like a wolf in sheep's clothing, they are using the cover of the word ``reform'' to advance blatant partisan changes to campaign finance laws, changes that will hurt Democrats and help Republican candidates in the coming elections.

Their approach to reform stands in sharp contrast to what we did on a bipartisan basis. About a month ago, Republicans joined Democrats to pass a lobbying reform bill, an ethics reform bill, the Honest Government and Open Leadership Act. It was passed by a large margin. The bill was based largely on a bill Democrats introduced the first week of the session. The legislation the Senate passed was not as good as the Democratic bill standing alone, but it was an improvement, a tremendous improvement over the status quo and imposed needed reforms so that Government serves the people, not the special interests. It was the most significant change in lobbying ethics in this country in a quarter of a century.

Unfortunately, the bipartisan commitment to reform we had in the Senate has been completely abandoned in the House. Instead of passing a substantive smart and tough bill as we did in the Senate, the House Republicans have ignored the wishes of millions of Americans, gutted all lobbying ethics reform from their legislation, and instead filled it with partisan campaign finance measures that are intended to help them in the coming election.

Essentially, they have opened the floodgates so they can pour money into Republican campaigns. The McCain-Feingold legislation that passed Congress and was signed by the President was important. It took away from campaigns corporate money, soft money. It was a reform measure that improved the political process in a significant way.

And this McCain-Feingold legislation, if the House measure is allowed to become law, will have been corrupted. It seems House Republicans do not believe they can convince the American people to send them back to Washington if they play by the rules. So like their old leader, Tom DeLay, they are seeking to change the rules in the middle of the game. They are seeking to change the rules to influence the fall election.

Here is an example. The House bill aims to disable so-called 527 groups. These are groups that operate independently and apart from the parties and bring more people into the political process. They fund get-out-the-vote activities and help register voters, among other things.

Notably, the House bill would not shut down spending by all independent groups but only certain independent groups. No, the House would leave Republican-leaning 501(c)6)trade associations free to raise and spend money, soft money, corporate money, money over and above McCain-Feingold spending limits. That is what this is about.

These trade associations, such as Americans For Job Security, spend millions of dollars in ads to help elect Republican candidates. Nearly every Republican Member of the Senate elected last cycle will benefit by ads run by this group. Those ads were funded with soft money.

If the people who want to change the present campaign financing laws want to do it, let's do it the right way: take a look at everything, not just take out of the blue certain things they may not like such as the 527s.

What about these 501(c)(6) organizations? You will not find trade associations, though, mentioned in their bill, in the House bill. That makes no sense. We know less about these Republican groups than we do of 527 organizations. That is because 527s are required to disclose donors and how they spend that money. There is no such requirement for these trade associations.

Here is another even more significant example of the tricks House Republicans are playing. The House bill repeals the critical limits on national party giving to individual campaigns. Right now, the Republican National Committee may only direct a limited amount of funding to individual congressional and Presidential campaigns according to a specified formula that is in the McCain-Feingold law. The House would do away with these limits.

What would that mean? It would mean, instead of the limited amount of money that is available now, thousands--hundreds of thousands--of dollars could be given. It would mean that the Republican National Committee could give unlimited amounts to candidates in this cycle and to Presidential candidates in 2008. What we did in McCain-Feingold improved the system. Now, if the RNC can give unlimited amounts to candidates in this cycle and Presidential candidates in 2008, that is no small matter when you consider the RNC has roughly $40 million on hand right now.

This provision made its way into an amendment filed by Senator McCain on lobbying reform we did in this body, an amendment which would weaken that bill associated with his name. On his behalf, I say he did the right thing: He never offered the amendment, never called up the amendment, and the Senate bill remained clean of such rollbacks.

Democrats and Republicans alike have supported these restrictions because they are critical to protecting our political process from corruption in fact and in appearance. The authors of the last major reform bill--Senators McCain and Feingold--in an amicus brief with the court involving these limits called them ``essential . . . to maintain the public's confidence in the integrity of our political system'' and ``indispensable to any [campaign finance] regulatory program.'' That is what they said.

Without such limits, the Senators argued that ``the public's faith and participation in the political process will continue to decline.'' That also is another quote. Such expenditures, they argued ``create at least the perception that those who donate large sums to political parties . . . may enjoy positions of `improper influence.'''

These were wise words by Senators McCain and Feingold. I think we all should live by them.

In the wake of Abramoff, DeLay, and Cunningham, Americans are looking for us to change course. The House bill will keep us headed in the wrong direction. For that reason, Democrats will stand opposed.

If there is going to be an attempt to do campaign finance reform above and beyond what was done with McCain-Feingold, then let's do it. Let's have committee hearings. Let's have a bill reported to the Senate and have a fair debate on what we need to do to clean this up, not just take one particular aspect of it. The Congress must not ignore the American people's desire to do a better job in ethics here in Washington.

In January, when Americans across the country were crying for reform, we took the lead and fundamentally changed the debate on ethics and lobbying reform. I think it is commendable--as I have said here on the floor on a number of occasions, Madam President--I think it is commendable that we were able to pass this lobbying reform bill on a bipartisan basis. Thanks to our work, on a bipartisan basis, we passed some significant reforms that will ensure the Government of the people focuses on the needs of the people.

It would be unfortunate to see these efforts sabotaged and ultimately fail because the House majority has backed away from real reform and instead has decided that this legislation should be a vehicle to advance a partisan campaign finance agenda. If the trial of Tom DeLay and prison terms for Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham do not convince the Republican Party to clean up its act, Americans should begin to wonder what will.

I would be happy to.

Madam President, I apologize, through the Chair, to my friend. I do not know what Colorado II is. Is that what you said?

Madam President, through the Chair to my friend, the senior Senator from Kentucky, your explanation of asking me a question points out my problem with what the House is doing. I believe what we need is to have reform legislation in the House comparable to what we did here in the Senate. I think there are a number of us who would like to have gone further than what we did, but I would be satisfied with that. But for the House to call this lobbying and ethics reform is wrong. What they have tried to do is reform campaign finance laws.

I say to my friend, if we are going to do a reform of campaign finance laws, then what we should do is have the committees of proper jurisdiction hear what changes they think should be made, with the advocates of this, bring it to the floor, and have a debate.

As my friend indicated, talking about Colorado II, this is very complicated stuff. And I think if we are going to reform a little piece of it, let's look at it all. Let's look at how trade associations work. Let's look at everything. I am happy to do that. But what I am not happy to do is have the House call something lobbying and ethics reform when it is campaign finance reform. That is my concern.

Of course.

Madam President, every question the distinguished Senator from Kentucky asked indicates how important it is to have a full, complete process here in the Senate about campaign finance. Every question he asks is more complicated than the last. Him asking me how the Democrats stand on this issue is something I cannot answer. These seats have changed back and forth since we took up McCain-Feingold.

I will say this: Having worked as a candidate prior to the passage of McCain-Feingold and after it passed--as far as I am concerned, what happened in 1998, when I had a very difficult race in Nevada with my dear friend, the junior Senator from Nevada, John Ensign, we had a tough election, a tough election. But in the little State of Nevada, back in 1998, we did not have many people there. We are approaching 3 million there now. We did not have 2 million then. John Ensign spent $10 million; Harry Reid spent $10 million. But the vast majority of the money was corporate money. People could give us hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now, that may not have corrupted John Ensign or corrupted Harry Reid, but it is a process that does not look good, and it is corrupting, it could corrupt an individual.

Having run in 2004--it was a good election--I went out and raised money, as I did when I first started in this process. I would go to somebody. They would give me whatever the limits were: $1,000, $2,000. That limit would be printed, and everyone in the world knew what that person did for an occupation, where they lived, how much money they gave me. I felt so much better in 2004 than I did in 1998 because I did not have to go around asking people for these corporate donations.

I have not talked to my friend, Senator Ensign, but I will bet you he agrees with me because I do not think either one of us felt comfortable with those huge corporate contributions that were coming into the State of Nevada. The purpose of it: the Republicans ran vicious ads against me. He had bad ads that were run against him.

I think the process is better. If we are going to change the McCain- Feingold process, let's do it by looking at everything, not just 527s. Let's look at trade associations. Let's look at State parties. Let's look at this PAC situation where we have all these leadership PACs. There are a lot of things we need to look at.

But what the House is doing--disguising campaign finance reform as lobbying and ethics reform--is wrong. We did not do that here. And I think that speaks well of John McCain. He had an amendment prepared. He did not do it because he knows it would have corrupted McCain-Feingold. I would assume that is why he did not offer it. It would have corrupted the legislation we now have that we call McCain-Feingold, which I think has improved the process. I am glad the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional.

Now, I know my friend, the distinguished majority whip. He did not like McCain-Feingold. He worked very hard against it. He did a good job. He is a fine lawyer and a good advocate. He lost. Those of us who supported McCain-Feingold won. And if we are going to change it, let's have another fair fight like we had with McCain-Feingold, where my friend from Kentucky can be on one side, I can be on the other. We may even wind up on the same side.

But that is what kind of debate we should have, not what is happening in the House now, disguising it as lobbying and ethics reform, and really it is not.

Madam President, just one final comment.

I believe that if 527s are doing things that are wrong, maybe we need to take a look at 527s but in conjunction with all the rest of the things that happen in campaign finance. I have no problem with that-- but not 527s alone. If we want to look at trade associations and all the other things, I am happy to do that, but let's not just single shot one of these because there are a lot of other things that need to be looked at at the same time.

The distinguished Senator from Kentucky and I have had longstanding personal discussions off the Senate floor about campaign finance. We have had them on the floor. As I have indicated already, I have the greatest respect for how he feels. He is a real advocate for his position.

I try to do the best I can for mine.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.

I will use leader time, then, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I have the floor.

Mr. President, I have been in the Senate a couple of decades, and I have grown very fond of many people. There is no one in the Senate for whom I don't have high affection. But I have to say at the top of the list is a person whom I revere, a man by the name of Dan Inouye from Hawaii.

Here is a man who has devoted his life to our country, and for someone to come on the Senate floor--even though the person doing that is my friend--and say what I believe are abusive things about Dan Inouye is offensive to me and I think should be to the rest of the Senate.

This is a bill which is extremely important to our country. It is an emergency appropriations bill. Most of the money in this bill goes to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and rightfully so. But there are other emergencies that come up from time to time. The disaster of Katrina was an emergency, but there are acts of God that take place.

One such act of God took place in Hawaii on the island of Kauai. Rains lasted for 40 days and 40 nights, devastating that little island, but in particular it broke a reservoir, killing seven people. Seven people are dead.

Senator Inouye came to this Chamber and offered an amendment to have an emergency appropriation part of this bill. That is what it is.

For my friend, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, about whom we all care, to come and say to Senator Inouye, ``Have you no shame?'' ``Have you no shame?''--to Dan Inouye, a Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, on whom our country has bestowed the highest medal that can be given to a person in the U.S. military for heroism. ``Have you no shame?'' Dan

Inouye? The President declared that 40 days and 40 nights in Hawaii a Presidential declaration of an emergency. Senator Dan Inouye was doing his job, as any one of us would do if we had torrential rains hitting our States.

We know how strongly John McCain feels about issues dealing with appropriations, but this is beyond the pale. This is beyond the pale to say to Dan Inouye: ``Have you no shame?''

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 3601

Mr. President, yesterday marked another day of peaceful, dignified rallies all over the country in support of comprehensive immigration reform. In fact, in Los Angeles, at the direction and suggestion of Cardinal Mahoney, many people stayed at work and at school. At his request, people met later in the day. Hundreds of thousands of people met at 5:30 p.m. in the day to talk about why it is important that we have peaceful, very powerful demonstrations. The reason: They underscore the need for Congress to pass a strong, comprehensive immigration reform bill.

Last Friday, I had the privilege of discussing this subject with Cardinal Mahoney, the archbishop of Los Angeles, and Cardinal McCarrick, the archbishop of Washington. For me, it was a very moving meeting. I appreciated the chance to visit with these two kind, thoughtful, and spiritual men. Both of them have been tremendous leaders on the issue of immigration. We all agreed that it is of utmost importance for Congress to move forward with the immigration reform bill this year as soon as possible.

Last week, I also had the opportunity to meet with a number of other Senators at the White House with President Bush. As I said after that meeting, I am not in the habit of patting the President on the back, but he deserved credit--and I said so publicly--for calling us together and for hosting a good bipartisan meeting. My hope is that this will continue.

I made clear to the President that Senators on this side of the aisle are committed to comprehensive immigration reform. I pledged to work with the President and the majority leader, as I have in the past, in a bipartisan way on this very important issue.

Every day we fail to fix the immigration system, it gets worse. I have said many times our current immigration system is broken, and it is. We supposedly fixed it 20 years ago, and in the process we have 11 million or 12 million illegal immigrants. We didn't do a good job of fixing it. We must do better. We must have a cohesive, coordinated effort to strengthen border security, create legal mechanisms for American companies to hire essential temporary employees, and encourage the 11 million or 12 million undocumented immigrants in our country to come out of the shadows and be part of America. We need to know who these people are and make sure they are productive, law-abiding, taxpaying members of the community. We must also have proper employer sanction enforcement so that employers do not hire undocumented aliens with impunity. That is so important.

But the question remains: How will we move forward in the Senate? Prior to the Easter recess, I tried, we tried to get agreement on the number of amendments. We couldn't. The best we could get is there were at least 2 dozen. I tried to get an agreement on conference and couldn't do that.

Why is conference important? As we learned even in high school, when the Senate passes a bill and the House passes a bill on the same subject, the two bodies must meet and work out their differences. In the past, those have been public meetings where the two sides got together and worked out their differences. In recent years, with this Republican-dominated Congress and the President in the White House, conference committees have not been held. The Republican members of a particular committee meet in private with the leadership and come back with whatever they want, ignoring the minority. So that is why it is important we have some agreement on conference.

Over the Easter recess, I sent a letter to the distinguished majority leader, my counterpart, urging him to bring the immigration bill back before the full Senate at the earliest possible time. I expressed my view that the Senate should resume the immigration debate immediately after we completed work on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. That bill is going to be completed this week, as we heard from the majority leader.

I continue to believe that such a schedule makes a lot of sense. Few other issues are as important and no other is as ripe for Senate debate as this issue. Surely, we can pass comprehensive immigration legislation before the Memorial Day recess. But to accomplish that goal, the majority leader and I need to reach an agreement on the process for completing debate.

There are two basic elements to such an agreement: the number of amendments and an understanding about how the bill will be handled in conference with the House.

Opponents of reform and fairness have filed hundreds of amendments-- it is estimated about 500 amendments--to weaken or kill this comprehensive immigration legislation. We Democrats are prepared to debate and vote on some of these amendments, but there must be a finite number of amendments. Before we start the debate, we must know how many amendments there are.

I have made clear to the majority leader that I am flexible on that number. As I said previously, prior to Easter, I suggested three amendments per side. As I indicated earlier, I was told there were at least 2 dozen. We were unable to reach agreement before the recess.

So today I suggest we vote on 10 amendments per side. That is 20. We can have second-degree amendments and, as we have done in recent history, we can have side by sides. That immediately balloons up to 40, and possibly, with side by sides for each of those, 80. I don't think there is any chance that would happen, but it is certainly possible if someone wanted to be mischievous. I am willing to start with that number, 10 amendments per side.

I think this is the right way to do it, but this bill has not had the blessing of the majority in moving forward. This bill is going to take some time to finish. It is not going to be finished in a couple days. I hope we can finish it in a couple weeks, but there is no guarantee of that. But we are willing to work through this.

As important as the number of amendments is what happens in conference, no question about that. With the Republicans in the House having passed a bill making all undocumented immigrants felons-- felons--with the House majority leader publicly dismissing the Senate's bill, and with the House Judiciary Committee chairman serving as sponsor of the felon provision in the House legislation--listen to what Chairman Sensenbrenner said on the House floor. Basically, he said the White House originally proposed the idea to criminalize the undocumented status of these people. This is from Chairman Sensenbrenner:

At the administration's request, the base bill makes

unlawful presence a crime, such as unlawful entry already is.

This change makes sense. Aliens who have disregarded our laws

by overstaying their visas to remain in the United States

illegally should be just as culpable as aliens who have

broken our laws to enter and remain here illegally.

Again, at the administration's request, says Chairman Sensenbrenner. A few days ago, on April 16, a White House source confirmed this statement in the L.A. Times as being accurate.

Does everyone understand why I am a little concerned, a little suspicious? We have the House passing a bill declaring these immigrants as felons, and we are told by the chairman of the House committee that the idea came from the White House, and we have the majority leader in the House saying he doesn't like our bill. So we must have some agreement, and we need it soon. Time is a-wastin', for lack of a better description. It is imperative we have a firm agreement on whom the conferees will be, whom the participants will be, before we move the bill forward. As I have said in the past, membership would consist of Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee--10 Republicans, 8 Democrats--and the Republicans would have a 2-vote majority. However, if the distinguished majority leader has an alternative proposal that will protect the completion of a fair conference, I will listen, as will Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

We cannot allow the House to hijack this bill and destroy the Senate Judiciary Committee's bipartisan work. Under these unusual circumstances, conference protections are indispensable. There are many kinds of possible conference protections. I have indicated the most straightforward way is to appoint the members of the Judiciary Committee as conferees. The concept of sending a full committee to

conference is hardly unprecedented. In fact, it happens all the time. The Presiding Officer here for years was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I met with him when he was chairman and I ranking member on many occasions when we had the full Appropriations Committee there. It has happened with Armed Services. They typically send their entire membership to conference. The Judiciary Committee has done the same on prior occasions.

One way or another, it is crucial that this bill be the product of bipartisan consensus. This is how people feel around the country, not only Members of this Senate. Not many feet from here, on Friday, I was at a press conference in which Cardinal McCarrick and Cardinal Mahony participated. Cardinal Mahony said to everyone within the sound of his voice: There must be protections in conference.

I hope we can work together toward adequate assurances that the Senate's delicate compromise, bipartisan compromise, will not be filibustered by amendment or decided or blown apart in the dark of night without a real congressional conference.

Immigration reform is vital to America's national security. We have an obligation to act. I look forward to the Senate resuming this important debate as soon as possible and I would hope the minute we finish this supplemental appropriations bill. I look forward to the distinguished majority leader and I making a proposal to the body so that we can move forward on this issue.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Shane Buckley, Brett Hyde, and Luis Rangel of Mervin Iverson Elementary School on their selection as a Stellar Design Challenges team for Space Day 2006. I also want to recognize their teacher, Katheryn Grimes, for her outstanding leadership and guidance of the team.

Space Day is an international celebration of the achievements and opportunities in space exploration aimed at inspiring students to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. It reaches hundreds of thousands of teachers and millions of students around the world. Past events in support of Space Day have taken place in over 25 countries on 6 continents.

Created by the Challenger Center for Space Science Education, Space Day Design Challenges is a national competition that encourages students to create innovative solutions to the challenges of space exploration. The 21 Stellar Design Challenges teams were selected from more than 259 teams who participated in the competition, making these students' work even more impressive.

The Mervin Iverson Elementary School team designed a tool to help researchers on Mars. The remotely operated tool would collect samples of rock, minerals, and soil, analyze their chemical compositions, measure temperatures of the Martian surface, and relay this data back to Earth.

In honor of their achievements, the Iverson students will attend the national Space Day 2006 ceremony at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center and meet former Senator John Glenn. They will also have the opportunity to share their knowledge by displaying their project to more than 2,000 sixth graders from the Washington, DC area.

Their success is reflective of their hard work, dedication, and creativity as well as Mervin Iverson Elementary School's strong commitment to academic excellence. Please join me in honoring Mervin Iverson Elementary School and its Stellar Design Challenges team on this extraordinary accomplishment.

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

Mr. President, I see my two colleagues in the Chamber, the distinguished Senators from Tennessee and Louisiana, and I see my friend from New Mexico here. I have a statement to give. It will take a few minutes to complete. I apologize, but that is what I have to do. I guess I should make an inquiry. How long are the Senators going to speak?

The Senator from New Mexico, it looks like he is loaded for bear there.

Mr. President, I can wait and do my speech after that, if that would be OK with my colleagues. It is just a matter of trying to be nice to people. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Mexico be recognized--or the Senator from Tennessee be recognized first, the Senator from Louisiana second, and the Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the Energy Committee, my dear friend, be recognized for 5 minutes and following that, I would have the floor and be able to start my speech and finish it.

No objection.

Mr. President, is morning business allocated this morning?

So what the Senator from Washington has asked is that following my statement, the Senator from Massachusetts be recognized for 30 minutes. My statement is going to take a little bit of time, and if there is a Republican speaker who wants to come after me, that would be what should happen, and then Senator Kennedy can be recognized after that. Is that appropriate? So I ask that following my statement, the Senator from Alaska be recognized.

And following that, Senator Kennedy be recognized for 30 minutes. So Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens for 10 minutes each. So after 15 minutes, I will speak, and then it will be Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, and then following that it will be Senator Kennedy.