Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have a modified amendment that I would like to send to the desk

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

Mr. President, the amendment I have sent to the desk adds a reserve fund to the budget resolution for Social Security that would allow Congress to begin saving Social Security surpluses for future Social Security recipients.

If the Finance Committee does not report back, then nothing happens. The amendment does nothing to change Social Security--no privatization, no stock market investment, and it does not add to the deficit.

The amendment only creates a budget mechanism to allow Congress to consider ways to begin saving the Social Security surplus.

I suspect most Members of this body, Republican and Democrat, are on record on the Senate floor or in a campaign saying that it is wrong to spend the Social Security surplus on other Government programs.

While we don't yet agree on how to fix Social Security, every Member and I believe every American knows that it is wrong to continue to spend Social Security taxes on other Government programs.

This amendment would open the door to consider ways to stop spending Social Security money.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business and that this time be counted against the Republican time in the debate.

Mr. President, I have had a chance to listen to the debate on the PATRIOT Act in my office. I had not planned to speak. But hearing continued attacks on the President on security issues, particularly port security, while some from the other side seem intent on stopping one of the most important security pieces of legislation we have, the PATRIOT Act, compelled me to come to the floor to straighten out the facts.

It is important that we have an honest and fair debate. I appreciate those on the other side who have participated in the debate in an honest way. But I have heard enough of my colleagues from the other side use information and perhaps take different positions than they did only a year or so ago. I am compelled to point some of these things out.

I will give one example. This week in a Commerce Committee hearing, we were talking about port security. Senator Boxer said:

Our ports are a soft target. Al Qaida told us that when we

found that out through [their] documents. . . . . So you take

the Dubai situation plus our lack of action on security. . .

. . And I'm going to oppose this deal.

That is fair enough unless we put it in perspective. This week, Senator Boxer actually voted to filibuster the PATRIOT Act, which is dedicated in large part to security in our ports. An entire title of the PATRIOT Act is focused on port security. Originally introduced as the bipartisan Reducing Crime and Terrorism in America's Seaports Act of 2005, title III strengthens criminal sanctions and takes a number of steps to improve our Nation's ability to secure our ports and to thwart terrorism. Yet Senator Boxer voted to filibuster the enactment of this essential port security provision the day after lamenting the vulnerability of American ports.

The truth is, to anyone who has watched this over time, very often our Democratic colleagues, with all due respect, block the very thing they blame Republicans for--in this case, blaming the President. Not only did Senator Boxer vote to filibuster the PATRIOT Act, but after the 9/11 attacks, Senator Boxer was one of four Democratic cosponsors of a bill that would have specifically permitted noncitizens to serve as airport security screeners. Senator Boxer cosponsored legislation to allow noncitizens to do for air travel what essentially the Coast Guard does for port security. Now she wants to block foreign companies from using American workers to manage our port terminals. It is difficult to reconcile the two positions.

Republicans want a fair and nonpartisan 45-day security review and a good but honest debate. It is not fair or honest to take a position this week that was very different than one that had been taken before. To Republicans, port security is not a passing political issue but a cornerstone of our commitment to protect the American people. That is why Republicans are working to pass the PATRIOT Act. We demand a fair and impartial 45-day security review of the proposed acquisition of the P&O Navigation Company of Britain by the Dubai Ports World.

I don't mean to be unfair to Senator Boxer, but it is an example of folks maybe taking a different position, trying to blame the President for something, in fact, that they have blocked in the past.

This is from an editorial in the Los Angeles Times, February 26:

. . . Now there is a Republican in the White House, and of

all the grandstanding surrounding the Dubai Ports World deal,

none tops Boxer's performance. She said last week that she

would support legislation preventing any foreign firm, state-

owned or not, from buying port operations. Memo to Boxer: 13

of the 14 container terminals at the ports of [Los Angeles]

and Long Beach, the biggest port complex in the United

States, are run by foreign-owned companies. She later told

The Times that she meant such deals should get greater

scrutiny, not be banned. Still, this is the sort of proposal

one would expect from a Senator from a landlocked state like

Vermont, not one where international trade plays a vital role

in the economy.

The article goes on to talk about the 180-degree switch of opinions. Again, I don't mean to pick on one Senator. My plea to the other side, and my side as well, as we look at this vital issue of security in our country, don't look for political opportunities to blame one side for something we actually created ourselves. On the security issue, there is no better example of colleagues who have blocked security in many ways and now are attempting to suggest the President is not strong on security. President George Bush is the world leader in the war on terror and has probably done more to secure the borders of our homeland than any President or any Member of Congress. It is time we give him that respect.

Mr. President, I thank you for the time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I do add that to the request.

Mr. President, today the Democratic leader, Harry Reid, gave what was billed as a ``prebuttal'' to the President's upcoming State of the Union Address.

I am, frankly, astounded that he would criticize a speech so harshly that has not even been given yet.

I will let the President speak for himself when he addresses the Nation tomorrow night, but this misleading partisan rhetoric put forth on this floor by the Senator from Nevada cannot go unanswered, rhetoric which, unfortunately, further proves Democrats will say anything but do nothing.

Today, we heard many of the same tired cliches from the minority leader. He talks about a credibility gap. Well, the largest credibility gap in American politics is between what Democrats say and what they do. Democrats promised months ago to bring forth their own legislative agenda, but the Nation is still waiting. Day after day, the Democrats launch attack after attack on Republicans and our agenda, but how are we to take them seriously when they cannot articulate a clear plan of their own? They will say anything to get a media sound bite, but when it comes to solving today's challenges, Democrats do nothing.

It has been 4 years since 9/11, and after all their rock-throwing, Democrats still have no plan for victory in the war on terror. In fact, they have undermined the war effort with partisan attacks on the President.

They have complained about the economy since President Bush took office, but almost everything they do makes it harder for American businesses to compete.

Democrats spent the last year criticizing Republican efforts to strengthen Social Security but still offer nothing to fix this system in crisis. They even refuse to guarantee benefits for today's seniors and blocked a bill that would have stopped Congress from spending Social Security dollars on other Government programs.

They have decried looming deficits but offer no map to a balanced budget, instead calling for higher taxes and more spending programs.

How are we to take seriously a party that has no legislative agenda, that has no solutions or ideas to solve America's greatest challenges?

In stark contrast to the Democrats' invisible agenda, Republicans have clearly articulated and delivered a bold agenda to secure America's future. And while we have had some victories in recent years, the truth is that Democrats have fought bitterly to block progress for America every step of the way. Then these same Democrats come to this floor and blame inaction on Republicans.

To give just one example, Republicans have been working for decades to secure America's energy independence. However, Democrats, at the behest of extreme environmental activists, oppose real solutions to high energy prices such as increasing production of domestic oil and natural gas supplies and removing barriers to oil refinery investment such as onerous permitting requirements and a proliferation of boutique fuel blends.

Just last month, Democrats blocked energy exploration and production on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge which would provide millions of barrels of oil a day, or about 4.5 percent of the current U.S. consumption, with no significant environmental impact.

It is not just in Alaska where Democrats oppose efforts to access our Nation's energy resources. It has been estimated that enough natural gas lies under the Outer Continental Shelf and in the interior Western States to supply 27 years' worth of natural gas consumption, the primary fuel used to heat Americans' homes. Yet Democrats support policies that have closed these areas to exploration and production.

The administration has attempted to cut regulatory redtape, reduce regulatory costs, and streamline regulatory processes to allow more sensible use of the Nation's energy resources, while maintaining environmental standards--efforts that have been largely rebuffed by Democrats in Congress.

The obstacle to America's energy independence is clear: it is the blockade formed by the Democratic Party. In seeking to appease far-left interest groups, Democrats have blocked Republican efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and have needlessly allowed energy prices to climb higher and higher for America's families.

Senator Reid likes to say Democrats can do better. I think he is right, Democrats should do better. They have been conducting a war of rhetoric for years without offering anything positive to the public debate. Americans are rightly frustrated with a Democratic Party that will say anything but do nothing.

Now let me address what has become the favorite sound bite of the Democratic Party. Senator Reid said it today and many times over the last week, what he likes to call the ``culture of corruption.'' Apparently, Democrats believe this media strategy will carry them to a sweeping electoral victory in November. I have news for my Democratic colleagues: The problem of outside influence on Congress is not a partisan issue. This is a bipartisan problem and requires a bipartisan solution.

For those hoping to usher in a new Democratic majority in Congress on a media sound bite, history teaches us that elections are won on ideas, not rhetoric. Americans are far too smart and today's challenges are far too serious for Democrats to expect they can coast to a victory in November with no solutions and no ideas.

Republicans learned this lesson long ago from one of our greatest teachers, Ronald Reagan. President Reagan always talked about ideas that still resonate with Americans today: limited government, personal freedom and responsibility, and peace through strength.

Republicans did not win on rhetoric in 1994. We won because Americans agreed with our solutions: lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, traditional values, and strong national defense.

President Bush has connected with the American people because he has run his campaigns on ideas. He promised to lower taxes, and he has. He promised to aggressively fight the war on terror to protect American families, and he has. He promised to nominate judges who will follow the law instead of creating it, and he has.

Yet, as Senator Reid demonstrated today, Democrats still do not understand that Americans want solutions, not more partisan rhetoric. I know there are some Democrats who do have some good ideas and desire to work together to improve the lives of Americans. I have talked to many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who do seem to understand the reality, but their leadership refuses to allow them to break from the party line.

I urge the Democratic Party to think long and hard about the war of rhetoric they are waging. It is poisoning the atmosphere in the Senate, and it is turning off Americans from the public debate. The consequences of these actions will be fewer and fewer Democrats returning next year. This has been proved out during the last elections, as I and my fellow freshman Republican Senators can testify.

If Democrats sincerely want the opportunity to govern again, they need to abandon this ``say anything, do nothing'' stance and put forward some ideas and solutions. Regardless, the Republican Party will not wait around. We will continue to secure America's future with a bold, positive agenda.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator to add to her request that following the Democratic-allowed time that has already been agreed to, Senator Inhofe be recognized for up to an hour.

Mr. President, today, we resume consideration of the nomination of Judge Alito to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The order from yesterday allows the Democrat side to begin debate this morning at 10 o'clock and speak for up to 1 hour. Then the majority will have the hour from 11 to 12, and we will continue alternating 1-hour blocks of time between the two sides throughout the day. Members should plan their schedules accordingly to use the allocated time to make their statements. We will continue to work toward a final time for a vote on the nomination.

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

Mr. President, on January 4, 2005, I was privileged to take the oath of office as a U.S. Senator. I raised my right hand and, along with my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, pledged to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Now, as this distinguished body considers the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito, I am reminded again of what that obligation means. The legal experts have had their say, so today I wish to speak not as a legal scholar but as a commonsense American citizen.

When our Founding Fathers framed our Constitution, they gave us an incredible gift: a democracy with checks and balances. We will always be indebted to those visionary leaders who understood that we would need a constant, fixed star by which to navigate the unpredictable and changing seas that we would encounter as a nation.

Today, over 200 years later, the wisdom of our Founders is clear as our Constitution continues to serve as a protector of liberty and individual freedom. But as this confirmation process continues to unfold, I fear that we have strayed far from where the Founders intended us to be.

I am afraid we have done a grave disservice not only to Judge Alito but to other qualified public servants who will certainly think twice before subjecting themselves to the dehumanizing process this has become. As I watched Judge Alito's hearings before the Judiciary Committee, I was struck by the harsh attacks some leveled against him. I was proud of my fellow Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Lindsey Graham, who expressed the outrage of the American people and apologized to Judge Alito and his family for the behavior of those on the committee, who seemed more intent on slandering him than fairly examining his long, distinguished legal career.

Sadly, partisanship prevailed, and Democrats chose to vote in lockstep against this committed public servant. Every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee voted against this well-qualified judge.

Now, as this nomination comes before the full Senate, the unfair rhetoric continues. I find it sad that yesterday my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, took to the floor of this Chamber to insinuate that he could, as he said, ``almost imagine Karl Rove right now whispering to Judge Alito, `just say that you have an open mind, say whatever it takes.''' This accusation is insulting not only to Judge Alito--a man who, by all reports, is a fair and honest public servant--but to the intelligence of every American who shares Judge Alito's understanding that the proper role of a judge is to interpret the law, not make it.

These types of slanderous accusations also fly in the face of diverse and numerous independent groups that have stepped forward to defend Judge Alito's character and qualifications. Many of his former colleagues, including several judges who have served with him, testified under oath that he is fair and independent.

The American Bar Association, hardly known as a bastion of the rightwing, unanimously agreed to give Judge Alito their highest ranking of ``well qualified'' for his ``integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament.''

A bipartisan group of 51 former Judge Alito clerks wrote that the judge was ``guided by his profound respect for the Constitution and the limited role of the judicial branch,'' that he ``applied precedent faithfully and fairly.'' Where Congress had spoken, ``he gave the statute its commonsense reading,'' avoiding both ``rigid interpretations that undermined the statute's clear purpose,'' and attempts to ``distort the statute's plain language to advance policy goals not adopted by Congress.''

Their conclusion:

In short, the only result that Judge Alito ever tried to

reach was the result dictated by the applicable law and the

relevant facts.

Mr. President, I ask you, under our Constitution, what more could anyone--any Republican or Democrat--ask of a judge?

Judge Alito's hearings did serve a useful purpose. We now see a new litmus test being used by the Democrats as their standard for nominees. They have decided that the judiciary should be used to advance their own liberal policies. They are looking for a court that will act as a superlegislature, enabling them to reform laws in a way that Americans have rejected at the polls through the democratic process.

The Democrats lecture us that we must restore constitutional checks on the expansion of Presidential power, while in the same breath assigning to the judiciary a constitutional prerogative reserved solely for Congress. I am having a hard time reconciling these two ideas, and I suspect the American people are, too.

True to their strategy in recent years, the Democrats will say anything but do nothing except block what should be done.

Theirs is the philosophy of judicial activism that has led to decisions to ban the Pledge of Allegiance in our schools and allow local governments to take an American's home just to increase tax revenue. Increasingly, judges have legislated precedents that have little basis in written statute or the Constitution but instead are based on their own personal opinions.

This point was vividly made when Senator Kohl called for ``an expansive and imaginative'' interpretation of the Constitution, and further stated that the approach of a judge ``just applying the law, is very often inadequate to ensure social progress [and] right historic wrongs. . . .''

Judge Alito eloquently addressed this flawed argument when he stated that while previous court decisions are deserving of our respect, if a decision is not supported by the text of the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress, then it should be overturned.

Furthermore, he correctly pointed out that it was exactly this process, not an ``imaginative interpretation,'' that capably righted historic wrongs in the landmark civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education. To quote Judge Alito:

When Brown was finally decided, that was not an instance of

the court changing the meaning of the equal protection

clause; it was an instance of a court writing an incorrect

interpretation that had prevailed for a long period of time.

It is clear that we are facing the grave danger of the slippery slope in which bad precedent--by which I mean precedent not clearly derived from the Constitution or a law passed by Congress--builds upon bad precedent. Before you know it, the original meaning

of the law or phrase in question is lost to history.

The Democrats are simply on the wrong side of this important debate. The Constitution is not a list of suggestions. It is the constant fixed star that should guide every action we take.

The issue before us today reaches far beyond the confirmation of Judge Alito. He has more judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in the last 75 years. There is no question that he is eminently qualified to sit on the Nation's highest Court.

Today we are debating which of these two diametrically opposed philosophies will prevail in the confirmation of future judges--the philosophy in which unelected judges create new law or the philosophy that returns a runaway judiciary to acting within the bounds of the checks and balances established by the Constitution.

In my travels in South Carolina, time and again, South Carolinians have asked me to fight for judges who will place the rule of law above their personal opinions. I support Judge Alito because he has shown that he will do just that. The consistent winner in his court has not been a person of business, a branch of Government, or political ideology. It has been the Constitution and our democracy.

When the speeches are done and the vote is called, I hope there will be those on the other side of the aisle who will put aside partisan politics. I pray that we can join together in affirming the rule of law by voting yes to confirm Judge Samuel Alito as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, a vote for this amendment is a vote to restore the original purpose of an ethics rule. It was a rule developed to keep special interests from unduly influencing Members of the Senate by forbidding us from receiving outside income while serving here, on either side of the Congress. But, as the Government often does, we seem to have forgotten the original purpose of this rule and are now focusing on a technical interpretation. We are asking for some common sense.

The patients of a doctor delivering babies, many times a poor Medicaid mother, are not going to influence the votes of Members of the Senate. Senator Lott has mentioned a number of exceptions that already occur. The House, acting on the same rule, decided to allow Dr. Coburn to continue to deliver babies because of the benefit to this institution as well as the benefit to his patients.

Senator Lott mentioned other exceptions we already make for each other. We can receive millions from a book. But even more important, every Member of this Senate receives compensation every time we travel to speak to a group in different parts of this country. It is compensation only to cover expenses, but it is still compensation. And many Members of this Senate are still involved with businesses and take passive income and help to make some management decisions. It is compensation, but it is not direct compensation.

Senator Coburn's situation is very similar. He is providing an important service, often to poor mothers, and he does not want to make a profit, only to cover his expenses. My appeal to my colleagues tonight is to remember the purpose of these ethics rules.

These women are not going to influence votes. The only time he spends is when we are not in session here.

Let's straighten out one other thing, if we could. This amendment is not to help Dr. Coburn. It is about allowing him to help others, which is what he is doing on the weekends. He is not making any profit from doing this. He is serving others as he has done for years. But it is also about helping us, as an institution, to keep contact with people in the real world and the problems they have--on his own time.

I encourage my fellow colleagues to remember the purpose, to use some common sense, and to allow Dr. Coburn to continue to serve his constituents in ways that many of us are often doing in different ways.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I was just across the way in my office working on several things that I think are important to the country. We were working on a bill to stop the increases in taxes that will occur unless we act immediately. This is another bill that the Democrats are trying to obstruct, but it is critically important that we pass this stop-the-tax-increase bill in order to keep our economy growing and to keep creating jobs in this country.

I was also working in my office, with some of my staff, on some of the things we can do to move this country more toward energy independence. But I kept listening to my distinguished Democrat colleague from Illinois and heard him talking about our President and this war. The more I listened, the more frustrated I became. As a matter of fact, I would have to say I became very angry because what I was hearing was baseless accusations and shameless criticisms, things that were said that I think diminish the Senate as an institution, which I feel must be refuted.

I am afraid that my Democratic colleagues are playing the war on terror similar to a political game. It is a dangerous game that endangers our troops, and it is a dangerous game that the Democrats have played before. Over the last 25 years, terrorist attacks in this country and around the world have increased. During the Clinton administration, Americans were killed in our embassies, on our warships and even in New York City when the World Trade Center was attacked by terrorists. From the Democrats and the Clinton administration, there was a lot of talk, but there was no action. It was all left to the next President to deal with. Instead of dealing with it in a way that would help secure our future, the Clinton administration instead decimated our intelligence network with politically correct ideas that greatly reduced our ability to gather intelligence in difficult places around the world. John Deutsch, President Clinton's Director of the CIA created rules that hurt our intelligence community's ability to gather human intelligence.

Now my Democrat colleagues accuse President Bush of using poor intelligence to do what they said needed to be done before he was even elected President.

In 1998, with President Clinton's leadership, we supported regime change in Iraq. This was something that was determined as a national policy years before President Bush took office. There are some reasons we did this. Saddam Hussein had demonstrated that he was a danger to civilization years before 9/11. He not only attacked Kuwait and tried to assassinate an American President, he committed mass murder all over his country using weapons of mass destruction. He was a deadly killer.

He supported terrorism in other countries. If a terrorist in Israel blew himself up and killed Israelis, the family of that terrorist would receive a check from Saddam Hussein.

To suggest that Iraq was not supporting terrorists is not true. Saddam Hussein, as part of the original gulf war settlement, agreed to document and prove the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction, which he acknowledged he had. But he did not disarm. He did not document the destruction. The inspectors had to play a cat-and-mouse game with him. The world did not know what Saddam Hussein had. Our decimated intelligence network had to guess whether he had them. President Bush made the only decision he could.

Knowing the history of Saddam Hussein, having a national policy that was written by the Democrats to remove him from power, he made a decision to take action instead of talking about it. The justification for removing Saddam Hussein from power happened before President Bush was elected and had been supported by Democrats. But now they come down to the Senate floor and suggest that because the President had some bad information that he rushed us to war. In fact, leaving Saddam Hussein in power would not have been acceptable to any administration that looked at the facts.

This country cannot allow murderous dictators who have attacked our allies, threatened civilians and destabilized the Middle East to stay in power.

Now we have Democrats, whose attitude basically embolden terrorists for a decade during the 1990s by talking but not doing, on the Senate floor attacking our President for doing what we knew had to be done. But this is the Democrat pattern. They say anything, but they do nothing.

We are dealing with a serious energy situation in this country today, but for the last decade they have obstructed any development of our own domestic energy supplies. Now they are on the floor blaming President Bush for the high energy prices, while the President and the Republican Congress have managed, despite the Democratic obstruction, to pass an Energy bill that will move us toward energy independence.

The Democrats are on the floor often complaining about American job losses, but when we try to pass legislation that improves the business climate in this country, they obstruct. They obstructed passing our elimination of junk lawsuits and the elimination of fraudulent bankruptcies. They tried to stop that, voting en bloc against it. But the President and the Republicans have been able to pass that and move us along.

There are a whole list of things that Republicans, with the President's leadership, have done from the Energy bill, to class action and bankruptcy reform. We have passed a budget that reduced the growth in spending. We have passed a number of things that improve vocational training. There is a huge list.

On the back side of this list is what America needs to know about: The Democrat agenda, of which they have none. The reason they are misleading the American people about our President and the importance of winning the war on terror is they have no agenda. They are not willing to step out and take any leadership on any issue. So all they do is obstruct, attack, distort, and complain with their ``do nothing'' agenda.

It is hard for some of us, as we try to go about our work, to move America forward and address the difficult problems of today and create more opportunities for tomorrow, when we have to carry a concrete block we call the Democrat Party. But when they go across the line and start misleading America about the importance of this war on terror and treating it akin to some kind of political game, when we and our children and future generations are in danger, as is the rest of the world. As we see almost every day, this war on terror is real--we cannot treat it as some kind of silly political debate where they are trying to give the Commander in Chief of this country a time line as to when our troops need to go home. It is like they have not bothered to go to Iraq themselves and meet with the troops, as I have had the chance to do twice this year, and talk with the generals. The President has met every deadline he set for elections, to approve the constitution, and we are moving exactly as he said we would move, to turn more of the defense of that country over to their military. That is happening. They are opening businesses, schools, and hospitals, and we are helping them along the way. When we get them to the point where they can defend themselves, the President will bring our troops home, but continue to stand firm against terror, wherever it exists around the world.

This is not a game. Terror is a real enemy, and many Americans have already died because we did not take the war on terror seriously. It is time to take it seriously and to stop playing political games with the most important issue of our generation.

I do not think we as a Nation should ever yield to terror or the type of rhetoric we have had to listen to today.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

We have been waiting for several days to do this. We will keep the time.

I say to Senator Santorum, as he can tell, I was originally hesitant to yield to our distinguished Democratic colleague, but I am now so grateful that the Senator did yield because it made the case of why we need to guarantee benefits and why we need to stop the raid on the Social Security surplus.

Practically all the information that we heard is untrue as it relates to my bill, but the misleading information is the best case for the Guarantee Act that Senator Santorum has proposed. It is so important, when people are getting untruths and so much misinformation that is intended to confuse them, that we reassure the American people that regardless of how we change Social Security to benefit future workers, that we are not going to change anything about the benefits of anyone who was born before 1950.

I am honored to be presenting these ideas with Senator Santorum today. There is no one in this Congress and probably no one in this country who has done more to protect Social Security for this generation or the next than has Senator Santorum.

I am also supporting this Guarantee Act because Americans know that we have a problem with Social Security. It is disingenuous for any Member of the Senate to suggest otherwise. So we must guarantee in the face of these folks knowing we have a problem, but we also must begin now the process of fixing the Social Security system so it will be there for younger Americans. We can do that by, first, stop spending Social Security on other things. That is what we are doing right now as I speak.

Americans know why we have a problem with Social Security. Maybe Senator Santorum can add more later since he has done so many townhalls. There are many Congressmen and Senators who have gone out to talk about Social Security, and they have had many people stand up and say, Social Security would be fine if you folks in Congress would stop spending Social Security on other things. They figured out that every dime that comes in for Social Security that is not needed for today's retirees is spent on other programs.

If we could look at the next slide, since the mid-1980s we have had $1.7 trillion of Social Security taxes that have come in that were not needed to pay benefits. Our colleagues will say that that is safe and sound in the trust fund but, frankly, if there is one fact that is true on this floor tonight, it is that every dime has been spent on something else. Not one penny has been saved for Social Security for today's retirees or for tomorrow's retirees.

What we are proposing is to stop that raid on Social Security. We are not proposing a comprehensive change in the Social Security system. In fact, Americans would see no difference in the Social Security system. What we would start doing is to take the money that is not needed for Social Security today and save it so that it would not be spent on other things.

Here is the proposition: Between now and 2017, we are going to spend another $775 billion of Social Security money on other things unless we pass this Stop the Raid on Social Security bill. We can see it year to year. This year it is almost $70 billion that came in for Social Security that was spent on other things. Next year it will be well over $80 billion, and it will continue until it disappears in 2017. At that point, there will not be enough Social Security taxes to pay benefits, and we will have to start moving money from the general fund to make sure every American gets their Social Security check.

The Stop the Raid bill would take all of this money, $775 billion, and put it in Treasury bills so that it could not be spent on other things. Instead of the government owning it, the people who send the money for Social Security would own it.

My Democrat colleagues oppose ownership. They do not want the American people to own their own Social Security system. They want the Government to own it, and they want the Government to continue to spend it on other things. We want to stop that raid on Social Security. The Democrats, as we have heard tonight, will say that if we stop spending this Social Security money on other things, it is going to increase the deficit. Again, that is not true. All it does is make us honest with our accounting.

Right now, the $1.7 trillion we have already spent, and this 775 billion additional dollars is spent without any recognition that we are creating a debt. If we save this money in Treasury notes where there is no risk to the American people, we have to start counting it as debt if we continue to spend it. This is a secret slush fund that Congress has used for many years--$1.7 trillion plus $775 billion. Congress, every year, spends this money on other things and does not count it as debt. If we start saving it for Social Security, it will be a debt if we continue to spend it.

Only in Washington--and I am afraid only my Democrat colleagues-- could say that saving money creates a debt. I am afraid only a Democratic colleague at this point could say that saving $775 billion of Social Security money for Social Security actually weakens the program. Their intent is to oppose ownership by the American people who should own Social Security. Their intent is to spend this $775 billion on something else.

I have heard my Democrat colleagues over the last couple of weeks talk about stopping the raid. They want to stop the raid by increasing taxes. They have said that they stopped the raid. That has never happened, and that is not true because even when we were in surpluses as a nation a few years ago, every dime of Social Security was spent. Some of it was spent to pay down debt, but it was all spent. And not one penny, even when the Nation was in surplus, was saved for Social Security. We need to stop that practice and be honest with the American people.

My Democrat colleagues have said interesting things about stopping the raid. Our distinguished minority leader has said he supports the raid. He called stopping the raid a ``bad idea'' that will ``threaten benefits and increase the debt and weaken Social Security.'' Get that. We are going to save Social Security for Social Security and that weakens Social Security. It is amazing.

Let's look at another comment from Democrat leaders. This comes from our colleague in the House, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:

There is nothing wrong with Social Security lending money

with the prospect of returning it.

One more quote, and then I know Senator Santorum has probably some questions for me. This is from our colleague, Charlie Rangel, the House Ways and Means ranking member. When talking about the raid, he says:

There is nothing wrong with that.

But let be read his whole statement. He said:

Would you have any problem if you put your money into a

bank and they just took your money and invested it and you

went to the bank and they gave you your money when you needed

it? There is nothing wrong with that.

The problem is, that is the core of the misinformation we are hearing from Democrats, that our money from Social Security is actually saved in a bank; that it is actually there. But that is not true. It is not fair to tell the American people that it is true. There is no bank. There is no money. We need to start today to stop the raid on Social Security money.

I have had people back home, when we are talking about saving Social Security and putting it in personal accounts, tell me that is what they thought was already happening. They thought we were saving their money because we talk about a trust fund. But the more people find out about the truth, when we say there is not any money in the trust fund, first people smile and think I am not telling them the truth. We need to tell Americans the truth.

Right now the largest tax most Americans pay is the 12.5 percent for Social Security. That is thousands of dollars for the average American family every year. It comes into the Social Security system. It is credited to a trust fund. Then it is spent either on Social Security benefits or spent on other things.

We have made Americans believe we are saving that money for them, but it is all passing through. The only thing that is in the Social Security trust fund is IOUs. Our President, who has been a leader on this issue, actually went and opened the file cabinet where these IOUs are.

The problem, Senator, as you know, is we cannot pay future benefits from IOUs. But we can from real money if we start saving it. There is nothing risky about saving this money in Treasury notes so it cannot be spent on other things. But you asked an important question. Right now, the Government owns the Social Security benefit and politicians control it. If we start saving Social Security in personal accounts--we are not talking about taking it out of the Social Security system. It is still just as much a part of the Social Security system as what we have today, only it is real money and people own it, which means they have

a legal right to it, which they do not today. In the future, politicians cannot build their whole election campaign around frightening seniors that we are going to take their Social Security.

This bill alone would not change anyone's benefits. In fact, it includes, as yours does, a guarantee. People will continue to get the benefit they have been promised. Only part of their benefit would be paid by the traditional system and part from real money. Our hope is, as you mentioned before, this is a first step. We need to move past the first step of saving the $775 billion and go back and get the Government to pay back what they have already borrowed from Social Security, invest that in those accounts and let them earn interest, and it grows. It is a large step toward solving the future problems of Social Security.

It is going to take several steps to fix it, but this is the most important first step. If we cannot stop spending Social Security on other things we cannot go to the American people and honestly tell them we have a solution, not if we cannot even stop spending it on something else.

Only if we slow our spending as a government.

It is definitely an honest accounting bill. Right now this money goes on the table and the Government secretly sweeps it away and spends it.

Right. We are going to take it off the table and save it. So the whole point is, if you want to keep spending that money as a Congress, we are going to have to recognize it as debt and admit to the American people that we are spending more than we told them we were spending.

Exactly right. We will also be honest about telling the American people we have not been saving the money, but we are going to start saving their money and we are going to figure out a way to go back and get what has been borrowed from Social Security and put it back so that Social Security will be there for your children and mine and our grandchildren.

I say to the Senator, I know you want to make a motion. But it is important that you and our colleagues know what we are asking for. We are not asking to pass a bill tonight. We are asking to move the bill into the debate process so that the American people can find out more about where we are and how this Guarantee Act and this Stop the Raid Act can secure their future.

I yield back to the Senator to make the motion.

Ten or 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.

I find the comments of the Senator from North Dakota very curious, if not amusing. I find the opposition to this deficit reduction package perplexing.

How can we come to the Senate and rail against deficits and, at the same time, rail against spending cuts? Some of my colleagues have gotten comfortable with voting against something before they vote for it.

In 1993, when the Senate was considering mandatory spending reductions much like we are considering today--only then it was $77 billion, about twice as much as we are considering cutting today--the Senator from North Dakota supported it. Not only did he support it, he took the lead in pushing for more spending cuts. To quote the Senator from North Dakota:

I am one of those on the Democratic side who insisted on

more spending cuts . . . I did so because I believed very

strongly that we had to have more spending cuts to have

balance in this program . . . Madam President, we succeeded .

. . We got more spending cuts.

The Senator also said:

When we talk about there being too much spending, when we

talk about the Federal budget being out of control, Medicare

and Medicaid are part of the explanations.

And, again, in 1997, when the Senate was considering mandatory spending reductions which totaled $107 billion, which is almost three times what we are considering today, the Senator from North Dakota supported it, too. Again, he not only voted for it but he called for even more spending cuts.

Again, the Senator said:

I, too, am proud to have voted for the provisions that we

passed this morning that will finish the job of balancing the

unified budget . . . Frankly, I would have done more by way

of deficit reduction. I wish we had been more ambitious. I

wish we would have done more in the long-term reform of

entitlement programs, but that was not to be. That is for

another day.

This is all very confusing to me. How can the Senator be for spending reductions in 1993, in 1997, but then oppose them today? I don't want to make any assumptions, but this appears to be politically driven because the only thing that has changed since 1993 and 1997 is the man in the White House.

The Senator is correct that the Republicans are now in the majority. But history will show that the Republicans in the majority in the 1990s worked with President Clinton to cut the budget and balance the budget over time.

Our country faces many difficult challenges. But my colleagues continue to talk a good game while they obstruct at every turn. It actually reminds me of an experience when I was a teenager taking lifeguarding classes at a swimming pool. One of the parts of the final test for that lifeguarding class was to swim to the bottom of the deep end, pick up a concrete block, bring it back to the surface and then swim to the other side of the pool. Every day when I get up in Washington, DC, I feel I have to go down to the bottom of the pool and pick up my Democratic colleagues and drag them across the pool.

On energy, while we hear rhetoric in the Senate blaming the President for high energy prices, the Democrats vote en bloc to keep us from developing the oil resources we have in this country. In a committee meeting last week we wanted to build new refineries, modern, environmentally safe refineries on old military bases, but the Democrats voted en bloc to stop it.

I heard this morning from the Senator from North Dakota about spending Social Security on other things. Yet when Republicans this year proposed we stop spending Social Security on other things and save it in Treasury notes, they en bloc came out against it.

The same thing is happening today on deficit reduction.

They say they want deficit reduction, but they are on the floor speaking out against it. I find the comments coming from the other side of the aisle very interesting. I keep hearing how ``we are opposed to budget deficits,'' but this chart will show how they spend, spend, spend.

If I could--and my colleague from North Dakota referenced some of the amendments that we brought up last week, which they said were offset--I think it is important, when we speak on the floor, we get our facts straight. Because these are the amendments offered by the Democrats that would increase the budget by over a half a trillion dollars, none of which were offset. There were other amendments offered with some offsets, but, as shown on this chart, this would increase the spending and the deficit by over a half a trillion dollars.

If we look at it in total--since we are using some moving charts this morning--if we want to be accurate--again, this gets back to the concrete block analogy--we are trying to cut spending in this Senate, which is only a third of what we did last time we went through this same procedure, with Democratic support, yet amendments have been offered that have taken this all the way up to the top of $500 billion and beyond, with the new amendments that were offered last week.

It is important, as a nation, we address difficult issues in a sound, fiscally responsible way. This bill before us this week is very modest, with spending cuts that reduce no care to the poor; they are cutting wasteful spending and fraud from Medicaid and other programs. This should be an easy vote for every Member of the Senate. There is other spending that we need to address. This bill should be easy.

I encourage all of my colleagues to set the rhetoric aside. Let's leave the concrete block at the bottom of the pool and swim across it together and get this done on behalf of the American people.

Mr. President, I thank the Chariman for this time and yield back.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes in morning business.

If I may, I ask the Chair to notify me when I have 1 minute remaining.

Mr. President, yesterday I spoke on the floor about the need for fiscal responsibility and the need to pass a deficit reduction bill to get our fiscal house in order. These are serious times, difficult for our country and for many of our citizens. Americans are demanding bold and immediate action.

The Senator from Oklahoma, Dr. Coburn, made some important remarks on the floor last week. I want to associate myself with them. Senator

Coburn talked about a distant rumble, a rumble at the grassroots level, the sound of hard-working Americans who are getting increasingly angry with out-of-control Government spending, waste, fraud, and abuse.

This rumble is becoming a roar, and it is the sound of the growing frustration of the American people. It is a sense of increasing disgust about blatant overspending, our inability to make the tough budget choices the American people make every day, and our unwillingness to make priorities rather than spending our children and grandchildren's future.

I am very pleased the Senate Republicans are developing a deficit reduction package that will cut Government waste and reduce Federal spending. The fiscal discipline comes at a critical time. There are many wasteful practices of Government, and I will look at one of them today in Medicaid.

In New York, there was a dentist who overbilled Medicaid, claiming to perform as many as 991 procedures in a single day. It was also reported that school officials in New York have enrolled tens of thousands of low-income students in speech therapy without the required evaluation. This created more than $1 billion in questionable Medicaid payments for their districts. In fact, one Buffalo school sent over 4,000 students into speech therapy in a single day without talking to them or reviewing their records.

In Illinois, another dentist cheated Medicaid out of more than $200,000 in bogus payments. This man falsely claimed to treat abused children in the care of the State's child welfare agency for 7 years.

In California, a Medicaid fraud scheme involved more than 15 clinical laboratories that illegally billed over $20 million for tests that were never authorized by physicians.

In Florida, an ophthalmologist wrote prescriptions for a single drug worth over $2 million over a 2-year period.

The list goes on and on. We are talking about Medicaid fraud and abuse, not medical care for the poor. The Government Accountability Office reports that perhaps 10 percent of all Medicaid spending is questionable or fraudulent.

We must stop this waste. The Republican deficit reduction package will create some needed accountability to this program.

I have heard objections to these savings from those who believe that these savings will fall on the poor. This is absurd. We are trying to catch a thief, not hurt the poor. If we let billions and billions continue to be wasted, stolen, or embezzled, that will hurt the poor. This is a small amount compared to the overall budget. This plan, this total deficit reduction plan we are talking about, which includes the changes in Medicaid, will reduce mandatory spending by only $35 billion over 5 years, which is less than one-half of 1 percent of total spending this year.

These spending reductions represent only about one-third of the reductions Congress passed in 1993 and 1997. In 1993, Congress passed a reduction package that trimmed about $78 billion. That is 2.6 times greater than what we are talking about today. Unfortunately and curiously, many Democrats who supported this larger effort in 1993 are opposing our modest downpayment today.

In 1997, Congress passed a reduction package that trimmed about $89 billion. That is over three times greater than what we are talking about today. Unfortunately and curiously, many Democrats who supported this larger effort in 1997 are opposing our modest downpayment today.

This plan, this $35 billion reduction, is a small amount to ask in the context of our total budget, and it is only a downpayment on our future deficit. We need to do much more.

I cannot understand why some of my Democratic colleagues will not support this modest effort, given all the waste, fraud, and abuse we have in Government today. I find this opposition intriguing because many of these same Senators supported similar measures that were far more substantial. In fact, in 1993, they thought $78 billion in savings was not big enough. Here is a quote from Senator Kerry from Massachusetts:

My own personal view is we have not cut enough where we

could have and should have cut more.

And Senator Dorgan from North Dakota:

I favored a more robust deficit reduction by cutting

another $100 billion in wasteful or low-priority spending.

Senator Biden from Delaware:

Specifically I want more spending cuts.

In 1997, when Congress cut $114 billion, my Democratic colleagues applauded it and some wanted more. Senator Byrd of West Virginia said:

If the budget resolution included only the aforementioned

spending reductions, I would likely be standing on the floor

today declaring my unequivocal support for its passage.

Senator Conrad from North Dakota:

I rise to support the budget agreement. I believe it is a

modest step--I want to emphasize ``modest''--in the right

direction.

And Senator Durbin from Illinois:

This budget package cuts 115 billion over 5 years, without

excessive new burdens on seniors . . . This budget cuts only

$13 billion from Medicaid over 5 years . . . On balance .

. . the spending package . . . [is] worthy of support.

I think it is important to note that 33 of my current Democratic colleagues were in the Senate at the time and supported the deficit reduction package. I am deeply troubled by the apparent flip-flopping around here. We hear a lot of talk from my Democratic friends about the need to keep our fiscal house in order, but then they offer amendment after amendment to increase spending.

Mr. President, I know this is difficult to read from where you sit, but these are the amendments to add to the budget this year by Democrats which totaled $460 billion.

During the debate on the budget resolution, they tried to increase spending by $192 billion--here on our Democratic ``spendometer.'' During debate on the emergency supplemental, they offered amendments to increase spending by another $10 billion. During the debate on the various appropriations bills, they tried to increase spending by another $253 billion. I think all of this shows us something, something the American people understand very well: Democrats are not for keeping our fiscal house in order. They are for higher spending and higher taxes. Rather than making modest reductions today, they prefer to spend, spend, spend. This new spending sets them up to tax, tax, tax. We need to wake up. We cannot keep spending and taxing, taxing and spending.

There is no problem too big for America to solve if we have the commitment and the strength to do it. The time for excuses and obstruction is over. I am here today to appeal to every Senator to support our deficit reduction package that will help cut the cost of Government so we have all of our strength to secure America's future.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, these are serious and difficult times for our

country and for many Americans. These are times that demand bold and immediate action. The American people do not want any more excuses. They do not want to hear Congressmen and Senators arguing about who is to blame, and they are not impressed by those who constantly criticize the proposals of others but never make any proposals of their own.

Energy prices are too high, and we have heard enough excuses about why America cannot develop our own oil and gas reserves, build more refineries, and develop more alternative fuels to make us more independent of Middle East oil.

Health care and health insurance are too expensive, and we have heard enough excuses about why individuals cannot buy health insurance from anywhere in the country and get the same tax breaks as businesses.

Illegal immigration is out of control, and we have heard enough excuses about why we cannot control our borders.

Social Security is going broke, and we have heard enough excuses why Congress should continue to spend trillions of dollars of Social Security taxes on other Government programs.

We need action now, but we cannot solve these difficult problems that face us if we do not have a strong economy and a more efficient Government. House and Senate Republicans are developing budget reconciliation legislation now that will accomplish these goals to strengthen our economy, create jobs, and cut the cost of the Federal Government.

This package has two parts. The first part is to stop the scheduled tax increases that will soon add new burdens to our citizens and the businesses that pay their salaries. We must not allow new tax increases to steal our jobs and weaken our country at a time when we need all of our economic strength to solve the problems of today and to create new opportunities for the future.

The 2003 jobs and growth plan passed by Congress and signed by the President lowered taxes for capital gains and dividends, and it resulted in greater economic growth. Our economy has grown more than 4 percent a year since 2003, much faster than in the prior 2 years. Over 4 million jobs have been created since 2003, and 7 million seniors saved an average of over $1200 on their 2004 taxes. And while tax rates have fallen, tax revenues have been increasing. In fact, as a result of a growing economy, Federal tax receipts grew this year by over $270 billion--$100 billion more than the Congressional Budget Office estimated earlier this year. If Congress does not pass this important budget reconciliation legislation this year, taxes will go up and economic growth will go down.

During uncertain times, Americans want stability. And that is why Congress must act now to bring certainty to America's families and stop the scheduled tax increases.

The second part of the Republican budget reconciliation package is to cut Government waste and reduce Federal spending. There are many wasteful practices of Government. We have all heard the stories like the dentist who overbilled Medicaid, claiming to perform as many as 991 procedures a day during a 12-month period.

Could I ask unanimous consent?

Yes, if I could have a couple more minutes. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

I thank the Senator. I thank the Chair.

Examples like the Medicaid one I just mentioned are maddening. We must stop this wasteful spending, and we also must slow the growth of new spending. If we slow the growth of new spending only, we can save much of the money we need to help our States recover from this year's devastating hurricanes. There is no problem too big for America to solve if we have the commitment and the strength to do it. Mr. President, the time for criticism, excuses, and obstruction is over. I am here this morning to appeal to every Senator to support our budget reconciliation package that will stop new tax increases and help cut the cost of Government so we have all the strength we need to secure the future for every American.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill that would require hospitals to disclose their charges for the most common procedures and drugs.

This bill recognizes that consumers seeking routine hospital services need to know what they are paying so they can make educated decisions about their own health care. This legislation aims to give Americans that information in a user friendly format.

Specifically, the bill would require hospitals to regularly report to the Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services the amount they charge for the 25 most commonly performed inpatient procedures, the 25 most common outpatient procedures, and the 50 most frequently administered medications. The Department would then post this information on the Internet for easy access.

Under the current system, patients often have no idea what they will be charged until they receive a bill. This is a problem because hospital charges vary significantly based on facility and procedure. Some hospitals charge one-hundred and twenty dollars for a chest x-ray while others charge more than fifteen hundred. Uninsured patients and those who pay with cash are often surprised with unexpected hospital charges because there is no way for them to know what they will be charged up front.

No other industry expects consumers to commit to buying before they know the true cost. Patients should have access to price information before they commit to a procedure.

This bipartisan bill is good for the uninsured and for consumer driven healthcare. Individuals cannot be expected to get comfortable making their own health care decisions unless they know how much they will be expected to pay for different services.

I am grateful to Senators Richard Durbin and John Cornyn for joining me as original cosponsors of this bi-partisan legislation. I am also pleased that Representatives Bob Inglis and Dan Lipinski have introduced companion legislation in the House. They recognize that information is power, and this bill is an important step in empowering Americans with the tools to be smart consumers. I urge my Senate colleagues to support this bill.

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