Floor Statements

Mr. President, I come to the floor amazed that our Democratic colleagues still claim that tax cuts are to blame for the budget deficit. In criticizing the President, they fail to mention that the previous administration handed this President a recession, corporate scandals, and a worldwide terror network that had gone unchallenged for 8 years. Now, similar to President Clinton, the Democrats say we need to raise taxes.

This is the same, tired argument they have used since the 1980s. Ronald Reagan answered them ably in his own humorous way when he said doing away with tax cuts in order to balance the budget was ``like trying to pull a game out in the fourth quarter by punting on third down.''

Now the new midsession review is answering these tax cut critics again. When we cut taxes, we invest in economic growth, which not only creates jobs but brings in new tax receipts, and that helps balance the budget. It also puts more money in the pockets of the American people.

Last year, we were happily surprised to see that the budget deficit for 2005 came in at $108 billion less than anticipated due to the unexpected rise in tax receipts stemming from economic growth. This year, we see the same trend. The midsession review states that tax receipts have produced another $127 billion in new revenues. This is exactly the opposite of what Democrats claimed would happen when we passed the jobs and growth tax cut packages in 2001 and 2003. One of my Democratic colleagues from Michigan said at the time that this bill would ``create fewer jobs than what is needed'' and ``dramatically increase the deficit and national debt. . . .''

Another Democratic colleague from Wisconsin justified his vote against the jobs and growth package saying: ``I am still looking for the part of the package that will result in jobs and economic growth.''

Senators, look no further. In addition to the $235 billion total in new revenues, we have created 5.4 million jobs since August of 2003. And the Democrats still say that we can't afford tax cuts.

Republicans and the American people know better. A shrinking deficit and more Americans at work are proving we can't afford to raise taxes. I encourage my Democratic colleagues to remember what President John F. Kennedy--John F. Kennedy, one of their own--said, that ``the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut tax rates now.''

President Kennedy's words still ring true today. Cutting taxes allows working American families to keep more of their hard-earned dollars and encourages businesses to be competitive and invest in future growth.

Both Presidents Kennedy and Reagan understood it is business, not Government, that creates jobs and prosperity. This is why Republicans will continue to fight to stop future Democratic tax increases, to make Republican tax relief permanent, and push for comprehensive tax reform.

I am pleased that this midsession review offers yet more proof that the Republican's agenda to secure American jobs and balance the budget is working. We are making progress. It is third down and time for us to run the ball for a touchdown--not punt it away.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 4 of rule XVI for the purpose of proposing to the bill H.R. 5441 amendment No. 4568.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of Amendments''.)

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:20 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the nomination of Henry Paulson to be Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. President, June 28 is a great day in the history of my State of South Carolina and in the formation of our great Nation. You see, it is on this date that we celebrate Carolina Day.

Two hundred and thirty years ago today, a small but determined group of fewer than 1,200 South Carolina patriots held off a British force that was more than twice their size.

The battle--which took place on Sullivan's Island, just outside the entrance to Charleston Harbor--became the first major American victory of the Revolutionary War.

Colonel William Moultrie, who commanded the colonist troops, had few resources at his disposal. So, he built a fort out of palmetto logs--a plentiful local resource.

Facing such make-shift opposition, the British commanders thought they would easily sweep into Charleston.

But these amazing palmetto logs actually absorbed the impact of the British cannonballs. This strengthened the American defense and gave the brave colonists a critical advantage.

The British were soundly defeated in a long, nine-hour battle. More than 200 of the British were killed or wounded, compared to only 35 of Colonel Moultrie's command.

Many historians consider this battle to be one of the greatest defeats in the entire history of the British navy.

Many South Carolina heroes were made on that day.

One such, hero, Sergeant William Jasper, is recognized for saving the regiment's flag after it was shot down by British fire. Seeing that it had been hit, Jasper exclaimed, ``Colonel, don't let us fight without our flag!''

Sergeant Jasper then jumped into the face of enemy fire, walked the entire length of the fort--in full view of the British and cut the flag from its broken pole. He then added a new staff and replanted the flag back on the fort wall. Turning to the enemy, he gave three cheers and returned to his gun.

That flag--a blue banner with a white crescent--represented the dream of real freedom to these patriots. And today, that historic banner still serves as a source of pride and inspiration, as part of South Carolina's official State seal.

The blue background and white crescent also serve as the basis of our beautiful State flag, which incorporates a tall, proud palmetto tree . . . in recognition of the heroes of Fort Moultrie.

The resounding American defense of the City of Charleston at Fort Moultrie gave our fledgling Nation hope in the possibility of ultimate victory. And less than one week later--on July 4, 1776--the Continental Congress forever changed the course of history, signing our Declaration of Independence.

This story has profound relevance to what we face today as we fight the global war on terror. I can imagine those great patriots felt the same kind of joy that is plainly visible in the eyes of Iraqi citizens . . . people who are only now beginning to share in the sweet taste of freedoms that we so often take for granted.

Mr. President, as we celebrate Independence Day with friends and family, may we always remember the price that was paid for our freedom.

And may we resolve that the sacrifice of our brave soldiers across the years--from Fort Moultrie, SC, to Kirkuk, Iraq--will never have been in vain.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 3:15 p.m., in closed session, for a discussion on training and equipping Iraqi security forces.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 28, 2006, immediately following the first rollcall vote of the day's session, to vote on the nomination of Mr. James S. Simpson, of New York, to be Federal Transit Administrator, Department of Transportation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, to consider H.R. 5252.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 10:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the nomination of Marc Spitzer, of Arizona, to be a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the term expiring June 30, 2011, vice Nora Mead Brownell, resigned.

Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold an oversight hearing on EPA regional inconsistencies.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider S. 1321, the Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act of 2005, and an amendment that incorporates S. 832, the Taxpayer Protection and Assistance Act of 2005. Pending the introduction of a bill, the Chairman also intends to hold a markup of legislation to implement the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 10 a.m., followed by a full committee hearing commencing at 10:30 a.m. Both the executive session and full committee hearing are scheduled to be held in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 10 a.m., to consider the nominations of Mickey D. Barnett, Katherine C. Tobin, and Ellen C. Williams to be Governors, U.S. Postal Service.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Native American Housing Programs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Hedge Funds and Independent Analysts: How Independent Are Their Relationships?'' on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226.

Witness list

Panel I: The Honorable Matt Friedrich Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Crime Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC; The Honorable Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT.

Panel II: Gary Aguirre, Former Investigator, Securities Exchange Commission, Washington, DC; Marc Kasowitz, Senior Partner, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, Alliance for Investment Transparency, New York, NY; Joseph McLaughlin, Partner, Sidley & Austin LLP, Managed Fund Association, New York, NY;

Kim Blickenstaff, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Biosite, Inc., San Diego, CA; Owen Lamont, Professor of Finance, Yale School of Management, New Haven, CT; Demetrios Anifantis, Former Employee, Camelback Research Alliance, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ; Howard Schillit, Chief Executive Officer and Founder, Center for Financial Research and Analysis [CFRA, LLC], Rockville, MD; Jonathan Boersma, Director, Standards of Practice CFA Centre for Financial Market Integrity, Charlottesville, VA.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 2 p.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness list

Panel I: (Members of Congress).

Panel II: Kimberly Ann Moore to be United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit; Bobby E. Shepherd to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 2:30 p.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1812, to amend the reclamation projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to provide for the conjunctive use of surface and ground water in Juab County, Utah; S. 1965, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain buildings and lands of the Yakima Project, Washington, to the Yakima-Tieton irrigation district; S. 2129, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land and improvements of the Gooding division of the Minidoka Project, Idaho; S. 2470, to authorize early repayment of obligations to the Bureau of Reclamation within the A&B irrigation district in the State of Idaho; S. 2502, to provide for the modification of an amendatory repayment contract between the Secretary of the Interior and the North Unit Irrigation District, and for other purposes; S. 3404, a bill to preauthorize the MNI Wiconi rural water supply project; H.R. 2383, to predesignate the facility of the Bureau of Reclamation located at 19550 Kelso Road in Byron, California, as the ``C.W. `Bill' Jones Plumbing Plant''; and H.R. 4204, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer ownership of the American River pump station project and for other purposes.

Madam President, we are being subjected, once again, to the tired old Democratic song that Republicans are trying to help their rich friends, even though the other side has said only 2 or 3 out of every 1,000 Americans pay this tax. They think we are doing this to get votes. Even though they say only a small number of Americans pay this tax, the majority of Americans believe it is wrong because they know what Senator Sessions was just saying about a family-owned hotel chain, that it is not just those who own it who will suffer if it is broken up and sold, that it is all the people who work for it.

So the question today is really when someone dies in America, should their property and possessions go to the Government, or should it stay working in a family business or farm in producing jobs in this country?

One point I would like to make in this short period of time is, this estate tax does not benefit the average American. It does not help poor Americans. In fact, it takes their job.

Just to deal with the death tax--and we have heard these figures before--lawyer and accountant fees are from $30,000 to $150,000, life insurance policies, which Senator Sessions just mentioned, appraisal costs, tax preparation--the cost of dealing with this is actually much more than the revenue.

This chart reminds us that the revenue in the death tax is less than $25 billion a year, but the economic cost to our country is estimated at $847 billion in lost capital investment because of the death tax, a loss of over 100,000 jobs per year, and over $10 billion in lost income.

The American people are not stupid. They know that while this tax may hit

the wealthiest of Americans, that most of us as Americans work for those family businesses or farms. It makes no sense to break up these businesses and send the money to the Government where it will not be nearly as effective in producing economic prosperity.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Ensign's amendment. I very much appreciate him offering it on behalf of the American people. I also appreciate the efforts of all my colleagues who I know have worked in good faith to try to create a better immigration system that works for Americans and our heritage of welcoming immigrants.

As we have gone through this process, I think it has been a good, civil, and constructive debate, but some of us are just coming down on different sides.

My hope was as we went through this debate that we would recognize the urgent sense that Americans have what we need to secure our borders and that we need to stop illegal immigration before we expand legal immigration or increase benefits to those who are here illegally.

I had hoped that when Senator Isakson offered his amendment that included comprehensive reform but created a commonsense sequence, that we in America would see that we need to control our borders before we add additional legal immigrants. But when that amendment failed, I think it discouraged a lot of us, that perhaps everyone wasn't working in a way that would be constructive for America's future.

We also saw when Senator Ensign offered an amendment that had some commonsense ideas if someone had come here illegally and stolen someone's Social Security number, certainly they should not be rewarded by receiving Social Security benefits for the time they were using a stolen Social Security number. I think most of us thought that commonsense amendment would have been adopted overwhelmingly. Unfortunately, it failed, which discouraged many of us who wanted to work as part of a team toward comprehensive reform.

Now we see with this amendment a recognition that we don't need to continue to add reward on top of reward for those who have been working here illegally. While we need to struggle to find a system that works for America, we should not use taxpayer dollars, American taxpayer dollars to give tax credits to folks who have been working here illegally. This does not make sense.

Again, I encourage my colleagues to consider this because it is not only unjust to Americans, I think it is unfair

to immigrants. This bill is ultimately going to create such a level of resentment for our immigrants. Once Americans see that this bill creates rewards for those who have come here illegally, not just Social Security benefits but tax credits, citizenships, wages that in many cases are better than Americans', guaranteed wages, Americans are going to see this as unfair and resent the immigrants, and I think it will hurt our heritage of immigration in this country.

I appreciate Senator Ensign offering this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this immigration debate has proved divisive on many levels, but I believe there can be a shining beacon of agreement. In all of this back and forth, one group has been voiceless: the infants and young children longing for a loving home who don't care about or understand borders.

In 2004, I introduced the Intercountry Adoption Reform Act, known simply as ICARE, in the House of Representatives. I am pleased to rise today to join my colleague, the Senior Senator from Louisiana, who is introducing ICARE in this Congress as an amendment to the Immigration Reform Act.

Adoption represents the very best of the generous American spirit. In 2004 alone, Americans opened their homes through adoption to over 23,000 orphaned children from overseas. We must ask, how many more children would be with a loving family today if the maze of government regulation was not so complex?

The ICARE amendment takes two important steps to break down the roadblocks these children face on their journey to find a permanent family. First, and most importantly, it affirms that foreign adopted children of American citizens should be treated in many respects like we treat children born abroad to an American citizen. Under existing law, these children are treated as immigrants, having to apply for, and be granted, immigrant visas to enter the U.S.--a process that we all know to be cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive. Had they been born abroad to American citizens, they could simply travel back to the U.S. with a passport and enter as citizens. This amendment eliminates this discrepancy and injects common sense into the way our law views these children.

Second, this amendment streamlines the existing foreign adoption functions of the Federal Government. Rather than having to navigate through three Federal agencies the Departments of State, Health and Human Services and Homeland Security--adoptive parents would instead have to deal with only one: a consolidated office of intercountry adoptions located within the State Department. I believe this is an essential step to cut through the layers of redtape that currently bind adoptive parents trying to give the gift of a family to a child from overseas.

Mr. President, our laws simply must do a better job of accommodating the unique circumstances surrounding intercountry adoption, and I believe that is exactly what this ICARE amendment will do. That is why, today, I ask my colleagues to join the Senior Senator from Louisiana and myself in affirming our commitment to protect these children and provide them with a loving home.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the point of order and my colleagues' efforts to point out that this immigration bill is ill conceived and, I am afraid, misrepresented and oversold.

I would like to say up front that I appreciate all of my colleagues' attempts to solve a big problem for our country. Illegal immigration is a huge problem which we must address. But, unfortunately, as this bill has moved along, I am afraid it has gotten worse instead of better. I am afraid that we are failing to look out 10, 15, 20 years to see the financial tsunami, the category 5 fiscal crisis we have as nation, and we are adding costs without thinking about it.

I am afraid the supporters of this legislation would have us believe that it is a rather harmless effort to incorporate illegal immigrants into our culture and that this bill will not have a detrimental impact on our society and, more importantly, on the Federal Government's finances. The truth is this bill would add billions of dollars of debt. And tomorrow, our children and grandchildren will have to pay for our irresponsibility today.

Let me point out a few examples.

This legislation would allow an unprecedented wave of immigrants, and we cannot possibly assimilate that many immigrants in that period of time. The Heritage Foundation estimates that the number of legal immigrants entering this country under this legislation would be 66 million over the next 20 years. And this doesn't include the continued stream of illegal immigrants who are projected despite what we say we are doing to the border. This bill also does not prohibit tax credits for illegal work done during illegal periods that these immigrants were here. We are going to force them to do their tax returns, and some will pay taxes. But most, we suspect, will actually qualify for an earned income tax credit worth perhaps thousands of dollars. One projection is that illegal immigrants--the average in the United States since 1986-- could qualify for up to $88,000 in earned income tax credits. We must not force our fellow citizens and taxpayers to pay their bill.

In addition to this bad policy, it would also allow immigrants to get Social Security benefits for the work they performed while in this country illegally. The Senate rejected efforts to prevent Social Security benefits from being awarded to immigrants for the time they worked illegally in this country. We need to realize that they will be working with stolen Social Security numbers, which often causes chaos in the lives of Americans who have had their identities stolen. We

cannot reward this behavior with Social Security checks.

The bill would also provide some immigrant workers with greater job protection than American workers. The bill supposedly would protect U.S. workers by ensuring that new immigrants would not take away jobs. However, the bill's definition of ``U.S. worker'' includes temporary foreign guest workers, so the protection is meaningless. Foreign guest farm workers, admitted under this bill, cannot be ``terminated from employment by any employer . . . except for just case.'' In contrast American agriculture workers can be fired for any reason. Hence, there is really no protection for Americans, who could be terminated for almost any reason, while providing more protection for those who are here under temporary work visas.

In addition, this legislation straps States and local governments with additional unfunded burdens that could cost $16 billion over the next ten years, while providing no relief. This is perhaps the biggest hidden cost in all of this legislation.

The tremendous expenses from these illegal workers, who are here, whether it be health care or education or the many things they have to provide can not be easily paid for.

I can tell that I am running out of time, but I think it is important to note.

The Congressional Budget Office's projections are that this bill will cost our country $54 billion in mandatory spending over 10 years and $63.8 billion in discretionary spending over the next 10 years. However, the bill will only raise $66 billion in revenue. Put simply this bill will give us $51 billion more debt in 10 years and, I am afraid, even more debt over a 20-year period. We cannot increase our debt so significantly.

I rise in support of this budget point of order, and I thank my colleague for raising it.

Mr. President, I am so appreciative of Senator Grassley coming to the floor to set the record straight. It is so difficult to sit back in our offices and watch the debate and hear our Democratic colleagues distort so many facts. I would like to straighten out a little bit of the record myself. Unfortunately, the Wall Street Journal this week, along with a lot of other publications, has also tried to set the record straight.

I hear my Democratic colleagues saying the President and the tax package has been a great benefit to the wealthy and hurt the poor. But since the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, the tax burden has actually shifted more to the wealthy. The percentage of Federal taxes paid by those with incomes of $200,000 and above has risen 40.5 percent to 46.6 percent. In fact, today, out of 100 Americans, the wealthiest 3 are now paying close to the same amount, about half of the total taxes as the other 97 Americans.

We have shifted the tax burden more to the wealthy. The richest income group pays the largest share of tax burden than at any time in the last 30 years, with the exception of the late 1990s. The record is clear.

The record is also clear that this tax package and economic growth package is not for the rich. It is for the people who need jobs in this country. It is for the little guys, the 5 million people who have gotten jobs because of our economic growth.

Those who say this tax cut is increasing the deficit need to look at the expanded tax revenues last month alone, the second highest tax revenue in history because of this economic boom.

Those who are focusing on this tax rescission package and saying we should not be keeping the tax rate the same low rate for capital gains and dividends need to know that half of Americans now own stocks. They are savers and investors. Our goal as a nation should be to try to make every American a saver and investor. In fact, if some of the Democrats had voted with us just a few weeks ago, we could have stopped spending the Social Security retirement funds of Americans and made every American a saver and investor. The number of people owning stocks in America has risen, more than doubled since 1983 when it was about 40 million, and now it is over 90 million, and we have seen incredible growth.

My colleagues also need to know the statistics of those who do own stock. They are not just rich Americans; they are retired Americans. They are people with incomes below $50,000, about a third of them below $50,000. So the facts just need to be straightened out.

I think we also need to take our Democratic colleagues to task on things they have said about this economic package and what the real facts are.

This chart shows a Democratic contention here that the Republican budget will undermine potential GDP and hurt economic growth. You can go back to 2001 when the first package passed and see the GDP growth consistent over the years. We can also go to a quote Democrats had on this floor which said: ``The President has put us on a fiscal course that means lower employment.'' Here we see from this chart that employment continues to go up in this country.

Let's put up a couple more charts quickly. The Democrats said the Republican budget will crowd out private sector investment. But since these tax cuts took effect, private sector investment has grown at one of the fastest rates in recent years.

Another quote from the Democrats: ``The Republican budget will raise equilibrium real estate rates.'' The interest rates have continued to fall with the housing boom across the country. Ownership has grown.

The facts are, frankly, indisputable. I agree with Senator Grassley. It is a shame for folks to come down and distort the reality of what is happening and what we are doing to help the American people at every level. One out of every two households in America is earning stock, and allowing them to keep more of what they are earning through those stocks only makes common sense.

Mr. President, I yield to Senator Lott, who I think would like to continue to set the record straight.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 5:30 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees in morning business.

Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. President, next week this Senate is going to consider one of the most important issues that we will consider as a Congress and as a nation, and that issue is health care. All of us know that the cost of health care, the cost of health insurance, and, in many cases, access to doctors around the country is becoming a serious problem. Many are uninsured. It is an issue we talk about a lot in the Senate, but it is an issue we haven't done a lot about.

This is like some other issues, I am afraid, where our tongue doesn't exactly match our action. We heard a lot of talk on the Senate floor about jobs and jobs going overseas, but when the proposals come up to make America the best place in the world to do business, to lower the cost of doing business in this country, to continue investment tax credits, to put some caps on frivolous lawsuits, to reduce the costly and unnecessary regulations, and even to do things that make energy less expensive so we can manufacture in this country, I am afraid my colleagues, particularly my Democratic colleagues, block those actions and, again, unfortunately, pit business against people and profits against jobs. What we know and most Americans know is that people have jobs with businesses, and businesses that don't have profits don't create jobs.

Our rhetoric needs to match our action. We need to stop blocking legislation that needs to be done and blaming other folks when it doesn't get done.

We have seen the same thing happen with energy, unfortunately. For the

last several decades, my Democratic colleagues have blocked the development of America's energy supplies, blocked our own energy independence, even back in the seventies, when President Carter stopped the development of nuclear power generation and our European allies moved on to where now 80 percent of their electricity comes from clean and efficient nuclear power. Even the founder of Greenpeace has come back and said it was a mistake to stop that. Yet today we make electricity with natural gas, which is increasing the demand for natural gas and has raised the prices so that many of our manufacturers can no longer compete because of the high cost of energy in this country. And the price keeps going up.

We have seen the same thing happen with oil and gas where for years we blocked the development of our own energy supplies, our own oil supplies, and now we are down here trying to blame the President and others for the high cost of gasoline.

If we track what happens on many of the votes--I know I have heard on this floor that the oil reserves in Alaska wouldn't make that big a difference. But we know that only a 2- or 3-percent increase in our supply at this time would dramatically reduce the cost of gasoline. Yet on all of these dates over the years, going back to 1991, consistently our Democratic colleagues have voted to block the development of oil reserves in ANWR, and we see the price of gasoline going up consistent with those votes.

I have heard on this floor for a number of years that the 5-percent additional supply that would be provided by ANWR would make no difference in the cost of gasoline. Yet we saw during Katrina, when we lost 5 percent of our supply, what it did to the cost of gasoline and what it is doing today.

We can't continue to block what needs to be done and then blame other people when we have problems because it doesn't get done.

Today I wish to talk particularly about health care because we have gotten word from our Democratic colleagues that they are going to block several important provisions that we are going to try to get on the floor for debate next week.

One of those is medical malpractice. A very important component in the cost of health care is the fact that we are suing doctors out of business. We have 20 States now that are considered in crisis because of medical liability. We have another 24 that show warning signs, which means the loss of doctors, the loss of access to care, and less insurance available. South Carolina is in that group.

Let me share some statistics that should get folks' attention: 59 percent of physicians believe that the fear of liability discourages discussion and thinking about ways to reduce health care costs. The costs of defensive medicine are estimated to be between $70 billion and $126 billion a year. I think I need to say that again. The cost of defensive medicine is up to $126 billion a year to try to cover doctors from liability because of unlimited lawsuits against doctors. Blue Cross, a major insurer, when surveyed said it is already a serious problem as far as adding to the cost of health insurance premiums.

There are many things we can do to fix that, but folks need to understand the real costs because I know my Democratic colleagues will say that it is not a factor.

The only people getting rich from medical malpractice are the personal injury lawyers. Keep these things in mind during our debate next week: More than 70 percent of the claims against doctors or hospitals are dropped or dismissed before they reach a verdict, but even if they are dismissed, the claims costs are $18,000 in legal expenses. In 2004, medical liability costs that were settled--when cases are settled--the legal costs were $60,000. In the cases where they actually went to trial but the doctor or hospital won, the average cost jumped to $94,000.

The Wall Street Journal points out a number of facts like these, but one of them should really hit home. They were using Texas as an example because Texas has made some reforms that we will be considering for our country that have made a big difference.

Hospital premiums to protect against lawsuits more than doubled in Texas between 2000 and 2003. But I think probably the most disheartening statistic I have seen is that between 1999 and 2002, the annual per-bed cost for litigation protection for nursing homes went from $250 to $5,000. That is what nursing homes have to pay just for liability coverage for malpractice lawsuits. That is at a time when we have a new and large wave of retirees whom we need help when it comes to nursing homes. Yet we are suing them out of their hospital beds.

We know we can fix this. Part of the problem, I am afraid, is right here in Congress. As I said before, the only people really getting rich from the system we have now are personal injury lawyers. One statistic to remember is between 2003 and 2004, personal injury lawyers gave $102 million to House and Senate candidates. They got a good payback. In fact, it was a 10,000-percent rate of return because during that same period, over $18 billion in malpractice awards were given during 1 year--over $18 billion. We cannot continue to allow this to be a part of our health care system and then come down here and complain about the cost of health care.

We know that many doctors are leaving rural areas and no longer delivering babies. This is a fact. This is not political rhetoric. We know that in many places around the country, if someone is injured badly with a head injury in a car accident and they go to an emergency room, there are no neurologists there because they won't take calls because they are likely to get paid very little from Medicaid or another insurance company, but they could lose millions of dollars because of lawsuits.

There are some commonsense things we can do, and we have seen this happen in Texas with their reforms that we will be looking at next week. I implore my colleagues to consider what Texas did, and before we get into all the misrepresentations, the malpractice bills we are going to talk about next week do not put any limits on economic damages and allow up to $750,000 for pain and suffering. So a person who is injured could get their salary for life, all their health care paid for, and up to $750,000 additional money for pain and suffering in Texas. What that has done in just 1 year is cut their lawsuits in half. The cost of liability insurance has been reduced almost 20 percent in just a short period of time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Mr. President, I will conclude again with the hope and the request that we can debate this honestly. Certainly we do not want patients being hurt and not being compensated, but we also don't want many more patients not finding a doctor, not being able to afford their health care or to get health insurance. These are things we can fix if we work together.

If you notice on my chart, I don't accuse this of being Republican or Democrat. It is just an issue we need to address. We need to do something commonsense with medical malpractice. Please, let us put the bill on the floor next week for debate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to strengthen our nation's emergency departments, which are the backbone of our health care safety net.

Events of recent years--9/11, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita--have allowed all of us to see our emergency departments in action, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. With every natural disaster or terrorist attack, emergency physicians, on-call specialists and nurses are on the front lines. Many times, it's their expertise that recognizes a problem. For example, it was the diagnosis and prompt communication of the incidence of anthrax that prevented more deaths a couple years ago here in D.C. Likewise, should we face pandemic influenza, it is likely to be discovered first in our emergency rooms.

Federal law requires that each person who comes to an emergency department be stabilized. Yet health plans are paying less and less of this cost, and many of the 45 million patients without health insurance can't pay at all. In fact, more than one-third of all emergency department patients are uninsured or are Medicaid or SCHIP enrollees. This results in huge amounts of uncompensated care in our nation's emergency departments, which threatens their viability and everyone's access to emergency care.

Unfortunately, America's emergency patients are suffering because emergency departments are not supported well enough to handle day-to- day emergencies, let alone a pandemic flu or terrorist attack. Patients wait hours to see physicians, ``boarding'' sometimes for days in emergency departments and diverted in ambulances to other hospitals. This gridlock threatens access to emergency care for everyone--both insured and uninsured.

Emergency departments are under-funded and suffer from severe staffing shortages. A new study just released by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the American College of Emergency Physicians found that three-fourths of emergency medical directors reported inadequate on-call specialist coverage, compared with two-thirds in 2004: a sure sign that a bad situation is getting even worse.

Frivolous lawsuits and the nation's broken medical liability system are also driving up the costs of health care for everyone and threaten to leave already disadvantaged patients without access to necessary health care services.

But, even in the best of times, the number of visits to emergency departments continue to increase, while the number of emergency departments in hospitals continue to decrease. In fact, we've even seen a number of emergency departments have to close their doors.

Surprisingly, there are no standard measures to report the extent of overcrowding in emergency departments. During the last Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) surveyed hospital emergency departments and reported back to Congress--providing us with the data needed to begin to address these issues.

The GAO report told Congress that patient ``boarding'' in the emergency department was the most common factor associated with overcrowding. The term ``boarding'' refers to those patients who have been admitted to the hospital but have not yet been moved from the emergency department to an inpatient hospital bed. When these patients remain in the emergency department long after the decision to admit them is made (at times on gurneys in halls and elsewhere)--it diminishes the space to care for other patients, and adversely impacts the staff and other resources.

My bill requires Medicare to establish regulations to reduce or eliminate overcrowding and boarding of emergency department patients. We have the data to recognize this problem. Hopefully, national standards coupled with incentive payments for those hospitals implementing the standards and documenting improvement will improve the quality of care in this country.

My legislation, the ``Access to Emergency Medical Services Act,'' directly addresses the issues of low reimbursement, emergency department overcrowding, and increasing medical liability insurance costs.

First, my bill expands the current liability protection granted to commissioned officers and employees of the Public Health Service to include Medicare participating hospitals or emergency departments subject to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). This would also cover physicians and physician groups employed by, under contract, or on-call for duty to stabilize an individual with an emergency medical condition. This safeguard does not prevent someone from taking legal action. Rather, the bill requires that any tort or medical liability case must be brought against the United States, which in turn must defend any civil action or proceeding. Awards for malpractice judgments would be paid from a specific fund established for this purpose.

Second, my bill increases physician payments by 10% for services provided to Medicare beneficiaries in the emergency department of a hospital or critical access hospital. EMTALA is an unfunded federal mandate. Current law does not require health insurance companies, governments or individuals to pay for services that have been provided. As a result, emergency physicians bear the brunt of uncompensated care. This increased reimbursement recognizes and funds this mandate, and I hope it will go a long way toward improving physician recruitment and retention.

Finally, my bill provides financial incentive payments to hospitals that meet standards for prompt admissions of emergency department patients requiring inpatient hospital services. The bill would increase payments to these hospitals by 10 percent for Medicare beneficiaries' emergency department visits. The payments would be made only if the hospital certifies, subject to audit, that it met the standards for prompt admission.

The issues addressed by my bill impact each one of us. When you, or a family member, need the emergency room, you don't want to worry about it being crowded, closed, under-funded, or not having the staff it needs.

Emergency physicians, nurses and on-call specialists are the heroes in America's hospitals, working under incredibly difficult conditions on patients who need critical attention. Congress needs to step up and take action. The ``Access to Emergency Medical Services Act'' is an important first step to address these issues.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to strengthen our nation's emergency departments, which are the backbone of our health care safety net.

Events of recent years--9/11, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita--have allowed all of us to see our emergency departments in action, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. With every natural disaster or terrorist attack, emergency physicians, on-call specialists and nurses are on the front lines. Many times, it's their expertise that recognizes a problem. For example, it was the diagnosis and prompt communication of the incidence of anthrax that prevented more deaths a couple years ago here in D.C. Likewise, should we face pandemic influenza, it is likely to be discovered first in our emergency rooms.

Federal law requires that each person who comes to an emergency department be stabilized. Yet health plans are paying less and less of this cost, and many of the 45 million patients without health insurance can't pay at all. In fact, more than one-third of all emergency department patients are uninsured or are Medicaid or SCHIP enrollees. This results in huge amounts of uncompensated care in our nation's emergency departments, which threatens their viability and everyone's access to emergency care.

Unfortunately, America's emergency patients are suffering because emergency departments are not supported well enough to handle day-to- day emergencies, let alone a pandemic flu or terrorist attack. Patients wait hours to see physicians, ``boarding'' sometimes for days in emergency departments and diverted in ambulances to other hospitals. This gridlock threatens access to emergency care for everyone--both insured and uninsured.

Emergency departments are under-funded and suffer from severe staffing shortages. A new study just released by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the American College of Emergency Physicians found that three-fourths of emergency medical directors reported inadequate on-call specialist coverage, compared with two-thirds in 2004: a sure sign that a bad situation is getting even worse.

Frivolous lawsuits and the nation's broken medical liability system are also driving up the costs of health care for everyone and threaten to leave already disadvantaged patients without access to necessary health care services.

But, even in the best of times, the number of visits to emergency departments continue to increase, while the number of emergency departments in hospitals continue to decrease. In fact, we've even seen a number of emergency departments have to close their doors.

Surprisingly, there are no standard measures to report the extent of overcrowding in emergency departments. During the last Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) surveyed hospital emergency departments and reported back to Congress--providing us with the data needed to begin to address these issues.

The GAO report told Congress that patient ``boarding'' in the emergency department was the most common factor associated with overcrowding. The term ``boarding'' refers to those patients who have been admitted to the hospital but have not yet been moved from the emergency department to an inpatient hospital bed. When these patients remain in the emergency department long after the decision to admit them is made (at times on gurneys in halls and elsewhere)--it diminishes the space to care for other patients, and adversely impacts the staff and other resources.

My bill requires Medicare to establish regulations to reduce or eliminate overcrowding and boarding of emergency department patients. We have the data to recognize this problem. Hopefully, national standards coupled with incentive payments for those hospitals implementing the standards and documenting improvement will improve the quality of care in this country.

My legislation, the ``Access to Emergency Medical Services Act,'' directly addresses the issues of low reimbursement, emergency department overcrowding, and increasing medical liability insurance costs.

First, my bill expands the current liability protection granted to commissioned officers and employees of the Public Health Service to include Medicare participating hospitals or emergency departments subject to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). This would also cover physicians and physician groups employed by, under contract, or on-call for duty to stabilize an individual with an emergency medical condition. This safeguard does not prevent someone from taking legal action. Rather, the bill requires that any tort or medical liability case must be brought against the United States, which in turn must defend any civil action or proceeding. Awards for malpractice judgments would be paid from a specific fund established for this purpose.

Second, my bill increases physician payments by 10% for services provided to Medicare beneficiaries in the emergency department of a hospital or critical access hospital. EMTALA is an unfunded federal mandate. Current law does not require health insurance companies, governments or individuals to pay for services that have been provided. As a result, emergency physicians bear the brunt of uncompensated care. This increased reimbursement recognizes and funds this mandate, and I hope it will go a long way toward improving physician recruitment and retention.

Finally, my bill provides financial incentive payments to hospitals that meet standards for prompt admissions of emergency department patients requiring inpatient hospital services. The bill would increase payments to these hospitals by 10 percent for Medicare beneficiaries' emergency department visits. The payments would be made only if the hospital certifies, subject to audit, that it met the standards for prompt admission.

The issues addressed by my bill impact each one of us. When you, or a family member, need the emergency room, you don't want to worry about it being crowded, closed, under-funded, or not having the staff it needs.

Emergency physicians, nurses and on-call specialists are the heroes in America's hospitals, working under incredibly difficult conditions on patients who need critical attention. Congress needs to step up and take action. The ``Access to Emergency Medical Services Act'' is an important first step to address these issues.