Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Alexander, in introducing legislation

that would create the America's Opportunity Scholarships for Kids. First proposed by President Bush, this legislation will provide children who are in schools designated for restructuring with scholarships either for the cost of tuition at a private school or for sustained, supplemental educational services.

The No Child Left Behind Act set up a structure for schools to get evaluated annually to determine whether they are meeting adequate yearly progress. Schools are designated for restructuring after 6 years of poor student academic achievement. Children are often trapped in these circumstances, and this legislation will help provide them with either a way out or additional services to increase their academic achievement levels.

I believe that the America's Opportunity Scholarships for Kids will provide true school choice across the country.

Competitiveness and innovation are two of the latest buzz words that surround education. I believe that school choice will breed both competitiveness and innovation.

A few years ago I read an article by Maurice McTigue, now a professor at George Mason University. Mr. McTigue was the equivalent of the Secretary of Transportation in New Zealand when their government underwent a radical transformation. During that time New Zealand's government was decentralized, with most control and money going to local areas. This included the education system.

Rather than having money go directly to the schools, the money followed the children. The government set specific dollar amounts for each child, depending on whether the child had special needs, and that money was given to the school of the child's parents' choice.

This truly radical change caused great uproar at the time, as everyone believed that it would lead to the destruction of the public school system. During the first few years of this new system, enrollment in public schools did decline slightly. However, because each public school was allowed to change and meet the needs of its local students, parents eventually moved back to their home schools.

Now, public school enrollment is at an all-time high in New Zealand. Why? Because schools were forced to compete among themselves without artificial governmental barriers. Parents were allowed to choose the school that best fit their child's needs.

I believe the same thing would happen in the United States if school choice were made available across the country. In fact, two studies by Harvard researchers have shown that, as the voucher program in Milwaukee was expanded, there was a marked improvement in test scores at the public schools most threatened by the program. Students in these public schools have benefited from competition.

In Milwaukee, the choice program caused the public school system to shift power from a centralized administration to each individual school. This shift allowed parents and teachers to make decisions, including who could teach at the school.

Elementary and secondary education is one of the few sectors in this country that does not have open competition. By contrast, our higher education system has flourished because of competition.

The purpose of this legislation is to provide low-income children who are in schools that have consistently not met adequate yearly progress benchmarks, and have not improved student academic achievement, with other options.

This legislation would provide low-income students and their parents with two options. First, these students would have the option of a $4,000 scholarship that would be applied to the cost of tuition at the private school of their parent's choice. If parents decide not to take the scholarship, their child would be eligible for up to $3,000 of intensive, sustained supplemental educational services. Supplemental educational services are services that are provided outside of the regular school day, such as after or before school, that are designed to improve academic achievement.

I believe that this legislation is the next step toward bringing true competition to elementary and secondary education.

I hope that my colleagues will join Senator Alexander and me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Alexander, in introducing legislation

that would create the America's Opportunity Scholarships for Kids. First proposed by President Bush, this legislation will provide children who are in schools designated for restructuring with scholarships either for the cost of tuition at a private school or for sustained, supplemental educational services.

The No Child Left Behind Act set up a structure for schools to get evaluated annually to determine whether they are meeting adequate yearly progress. Schools are designated for restructuring after 6 years of poor student academic achievement. Children are often trapped in these circumstances, and this legislation will help provide them with either a way out or additional services to increase their academic achievement levels.

I believe that the America's Opportunity Scholarships for Kids will provide true school choice across the country.

Competitiveness and innovation are two of the latest buzz words that surround education. I believe that school choice will breed both competitiveness and innovation.

A few years ago I read an article by Maurice McTigue, now a professor at George Mason University. Mr. McTigue was the equivalent of the Secretary of Transportation in New Zealand when their government underwent a radical transformation. During that time New Zealand's government was decentralized, with most control and money going to local areas. This included the education system.

Rather than having money go directly to the schools, the money followed the children. The government set specific dollar amounts for each child, depending on whether the child had special needs, and that money was given to the school of the child's parents' choice.

This truly radical change caused great uproar at the time, as everyone believed that it would lead to the destruction of the public school system. During the first few years of this new system, enrollment in public schools did decline slightly. However, because each public school was allowed to change and meet the needs of its local students, parents eventually moved back to their home schools.

Now, public school enrollment is at an all-time high in New Zealand. Why? Because schools were forced to compete among themselves without artificial governmental barriers. Parents were allowed to choose the school that best fit their child's needs.

I believe the same thing would happen in the United States if school choice were made available across the country. In fact, two studies by Harvard researchers have shown that, as the voucher program in Milwaukee was expanded, there was a marked improvement in test scores at the public schools most threatened by the program. Students in these public schools have benefited from competition.

In Milwaukee, the choice program caused the public school system to shift power from a centralized administration to each individual school. This shift allowed parents and teachers to make decisions, including who could teach at the school.

Elementary and secondary education is one of the few sectors in this country that does not have open competition. By contrast, our higher education system has flourished because of competition.

The purpose of this legislation is to provide low-income children who are in schools that have consistently not met adequate yearly progress benchmarks, and have not improved student academic achievement, with other options.

This legislation would provide low-income students and their parents with two options. First, these students would have the option of a $4,000 scholarship that would be applied to the cost of tuition at the private school of their parent's choice. If parents decide not to take the scholarship, their child would be eligible for up to $3,000 of intensive, sustained supplemental educational services. Supplemental educational services are services that are provided outside of the regular school day, such as after or before school, that are designed to improve academic achievement.

I believe that this legislation is the next step toward bringing true competition to elementary and secondary education.

I hope that my colleagues will join Senator Alexander and me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I just got word that the 2,500th soldier was killed in Iraq. It is a milestone, obviously, that we all mourn deeply in this country. And that is what I rise to talk about, as a few of those who have died in the line of duty were from my State.

Mr. President, May was an especially difficult month for our home State of Nevada. We mourn the loss of four soldiers and marines who were killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan. One soldier was killed during training. And just last week, another soldier from Winnemucca, NV, was killed. While there is incomparable grief following these deaths, there is also strength and pride that never ceases to amaze me.

I had the opportunity to attend two of the recent funerals: the funeral of 1SG Carlos Saenz at Arlington National Cemetery and the funeral of SGT John Griffith at the Southern Nevada Veterans Memorial Cemetery in Boulder City. Each funeral I have attended and each family who grieves finds a very special place in my heart, and they will always stay with me.

1SG Sergeant Carlos Saenz was born in Mexico. He became a naturalized citizen and considered himself extremely lucky and proud to have been an American, as we all should. And for more than 25 years, he dedicated himself to serving this country. His wife Nanette is a woman of great strength who understood her husband's determination and commitment to our country. They actually met during the first Persian Gulf war. She is proud of him, and we are all blessed that he came to the United States and was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for his new Nation.

SGT John Griffith lived in Las Vegas most of his life. He told his wife Christa that he was fighting this war so their son would not have to. I will never forget the image of his two young daughters, just as the funeral had ended and they were taking the coffin out. As they were putting it into the hearse, I heard his two young daughters crying, and I heard one of them say: Don't let them take daddy.

That is the real pain of war coming home to a family, and we should all remember the sacrifices that not only the men and women in uniform who have died have made but also the sacrifices and the pain their families go through.

I also had the opportunity to speak with Victoria Legaspi, the mother of SSG Emmanuel Legaspi. Manny was born in the Philippines and signed up in the Army at the age of 32, after living in the United States for only 1 year. He wanted to give back to this country, and he wanted to show his appreciation. Manny should make all of us a little more proud to be Americans.

We live in the greatest country in the world--where brave Americans such as Carlos, John, and Manny, and so many others believe so deeply in our freedom that they are willing to sacrifice their lives so that we can all live safe and free. These men follow a distinguished line of courageous men and women who have paid that ultimate price for this Nation.

They are not the only ones who have made this sacrifice. As I mentioned before, the families, and one woman in particular, Helena Lukac, have touched my heart. Helena Lukac moved to the United States in 1983 from the former Communist Czechoslovakia. Her son John was killed by a roadside bomb attack in Iraq. He was just 19 years old. Helena knows what it means to be free better than most of us. On Memorial Day, just a few weeks ago, Helena said:

I'm really grateful that we are here, even with this loss.

I miss him so much, I feel it on my own skin. This freedom is

not free.

Mr. President, freedom is not free. The brave men and women in our military and their families sacrifice greatly for us, and we can never thank them enough, but we can express our gratitude to them.

So today I again say thank you to the men and women who stand tall in defense of this Nation and in support of our freedom. You make us proud. And with a very heavy heart, I thank the families across America and across my State whose pain I cannot even begin to imagine. Your loss is our Nation's loss. God bless you all, and God bless this country.

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

I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I call up amendment 4136.

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

Mr. President, I will speak very briefly on this amendment. It is different than Senator Sessions' amendment. It does deal with some of the very same programs, including the earned income tax credit. Senator Sessions' amendment addresses the tax credit prospectively. In other words, when somebody is given legal status under this bill they would be prohibited for the first 5 years from benefitting from the earned income tax credit.

My amendment is different. It looks back. When people have worked here illegally, many used a stolen or a false Social Security number. That is a felony. Our amendment says that under those circumstances, someone would

not be able to qualify for the earned income tax credit. So my amendment is looking retrospectively instead of prospectively. My amendment would also disallow other tax credits that are meant for low- income American citizens and legal residents.

Mr. President, I believe that I need to explain why this is issue is important. During this debate, the American people have heard, again and again, that people are going to earn citizenship. The supporters of this bill reminded us of that every day. One of the things that they have consistently talked about is the requirement to pay a $2,000 fine and they are also going to pay back taxes.

During the debate on my Social Security amendment, several people stated that immigrants have paid into the system. Most people who are here illegally--and I think the statistics bear this out--are low- income folks. Under our taxation system, most low-income people will qualify for the earned income tax credit. Which is a way to supplement a person's income, like welfare, but through the tax code. With the earned income tax credit, a family that makes up to $36,000 a year can qualify for EITC. In 2005, they could be paid about $4,400 and in 2006 a refundable tax credit of $4,500. So if we are making these folks pay a ``penalty''--in other words, they have to pay back taxes--these folks will qualify for this tax credit. In fact, many will get a refund instead of paying their back taxes. So what will happen is that the U.S. taxpayers will actually write them a check.

This amendment will stop that from happening. It will stop people from receiving a retroactive tax refund while they were here working illegally. Senator Sessions does it prospectively. Mine does it retrospectively. I think it is only right, especially for those folks who are here and have stolen an American identity and ruined someone's credit history.

Last week, I spoke about Audra, a woman whose identity was stolen. She had 218 illegal immigrants fraudulently using her identity. The IRS sent her a bill for a million dollars in back taxes. She cannot get a job. Her financial future is ruined. But what happens to the perpetrators of these crimes? Under this bill, those same 218 illegal immigrants will not only qualify for Social Security, because our amendment failed by 1 vote, but they could collect tax benefits too. If this amendment is not adopted, they will be able to qualify for the earned income tax credit, up to $4,500 per year, for years when they were, at the same time, ruining somebody else's credit and identity.

So, Mr. President, I think this is an amendment that should be adopted. It is a commonsense amendment. Even if one cannot support Senator Sessions's amendment, I think we should all at least be able to support this amendment.

Mr. President, does the other side want to go first?

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I yield the Senator from South Carolina 4 minutes.

I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. President, the 1996 historic welfare reform bill signed into law by President Clinton clearly stated illegal immigrants, people who were unlawfully in this country, would not be able to receive the benefits of the earned-income tax credit and would not be able to benefit from any of the other tax credits the law provides. That is right and that is fair. We should reserve those benefits for citizens and permanent residents.

This bill undoes that. The bill says: We know what the law says, but now we forgive you and, therefore, go ahead and claim those credits retroactively. Without my amendment, that is exactly what will happen in this bill.

The idea of stealing somebody's identity, stealing their Social Security number, ruining their credit, ruining everything that many folks have worked so hard to achieve, and then rewarding the person who stole the identity seems to me to be unfair, it seems wrong. If you have fraudulently used someone's social security number that--by the way--is a felony. We are forgiving that felony under this bill. So we are giving amnesty for that felony. It would seem to me that amnesty should be enough. We shouldn't, at the same time, allow the person who committed a felony to collect Social Security benefits and to claim the earned-income tax credit.

I want to put up a chart here because people have been talking about the earned-income tax credit. Senator Coburn earlier this year had a hearing on the earned-income tax credit. This program--and this is pretty consistent with what I have seen over the years--has somewhere between a 23 percent and 28 percent error or fraud rate. That is the error rate that currently exists each year without regard to persons affected by this bill. That fraud--according to best estimates--costs us over $10 billion a year. Just in errors and fraud. Now we want people who are here illegally to be able to go back and claim a tax credit adding more burden to the U.S. taxpayer, adding more to the deficit.

It was said by some that our amendment doesn't allow people to get refunds. That is absolutely true. If they paid into the system, and they overpaid, you are correct, we do not allow tax refunds. One of the reasons for this provision is because it is impossible to determine whether people using multiple social security numbers, as is the case with so many illegal immigrants, have overpaid. In that regard, there

would be no way to match a W-2 with the person who earned the wages on that document. This bill places a huge burden on the IRS, forcing the service to prove if someone has used 13 different Social Security numbers. Sorting out who actually messed up the system. Having to prove what someone owes and if they have overpaid, if they have overclaimed or overdeducted, it is a huge burden. By the way, we are not solely placing the burden on the IRS; we are also placing a huge burden on the American taxpayer. How? The American taxpayers have to fund the IRS. So it will be very difficult to prove whether someone has overpaid or not, and whether they are due a refund. We take care of all of that. We say, No, you don't get a refund and you cannot claim the tax credits that I believe are due for American citizens, and they certainly weren't due for people who are here illegally.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

My amendment is designed to accomplish two purposes: one, deny the earned income credit, EIC, to undocumented workers; and two, to ensure that applicants under section 601 are not manipulating their tax attributes to generate refunds that would not otherwise be due.

I thank the chairman and look forward to working with him in conference.

Mr. President, I yield myself the remaining time.

The Senator from South Carolina just talked about how coming across the border illegally is a misdemeanor. What he didn't address was that stealing somebody's Social Security number is a felony. In this bill, we forgive that felony. We forgive it.

What we are saying is, if somebody who has operated under false pretenses--the 1996 welfare reform bill signed by President Clinton said that they would not qualify for earned-income tax credits or any other tax credits that we have for the low-income folks in this country--this bill will reward them and reverse the welfare act. They will be able to go back and say, Well, here is where I worked, and present some W-2 forms, maybe falsified, but they can go back and try to claim that, and then qualify for the earned-income tax credit. I fundamentally think that is wrong. We are already forgiving a felony; I think that is enough.

All of the things that the Senator from South Carolina said about people coming here and working--and I am a big supporter of immigration--I think it is the strength of our country: The diversity that it brings, the hard-working people who make us appreciate America. I am as pro-immigration as anybody in this Chamber. What I want, though, is folks who, when they are coming here, are coming here for the right reasons. They are coming here to work hard. They are coming here to do the things that make America great. I think that is wonderful. They are saying in this bill that people will pay restitution, to earn legal status by paying back taxes. I don't know how many times I have heard those words from the people who are supporting this bill. In fact, under this bill, when immigrants go back to pay back taxes, to pay restitution, many actually get money from the federal government solely because of the earned-income tax credit.

America is a compassionate country. We want to embrace people who are coming--we always have--from around the world. But I don't think it is right to ask the American people, OK, forgive them for the felony of stealing Social Security numbers, we are going to give you amnesty as far as citizenship and things like that, and on top of that, we are going to write you a check. We are going to write you a check courtesy of the American taxpayers. Yes, some may pay a fine and back taxes, but the EITC and other tax credits will actually operate so that the American people are going to write the illegal immigrant a check. Without my amendment, that is exactly what can happen to financially reward millions of the folks who are going to be legalized under this bill.

Mr. President, is there any time remaining?

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, just so people understand the difference between this amendment and the amendment we just voted on, when folks were here illegally, a lot of them used fraudulent Social Security numbers, some of them had stolen IDs and ruined lives with these stolen identifications. This amendment says that even though that is a felony and this bill gives them amnesty for that felony, we think that is enough. We don't think one of these illegal immigrants should be able to come back, instead of paying back taxes and qualify for EITC and all the other tax credits available to them.

Uncle Sam is saying: We are going to give you citizenship, permanent residency, we are going to forgive the felony of using a Social Security number fraudulently, and also, now you qualify for tax credits, and so the American taxpayers are going to have to write you a check. I think that is wrong. That is why my colleagues should support this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter addressed to me from Mark J. Sprinkle in support of amendment No. 4076, which was agreed to yesterday, amending S. 2611, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, very briefly, to inform my colleagues, this amendment is basically the President's proposal to use the National Guard to secure our borders as an interim step as we are adding to our Border Patrol agents on our southern border.

We all know we cannot have a commonsense, comprehensive immigration policy without having secure borders. It is going to take us years to get enough Border Patrol agents down there. In the meantime, we need to have the National Guard to supplement and to multiply the force of the Border Patrol agents down there. That is what this amendment does. I believe it is an important step toward making sure we know who is coming into this country, making sure terrorists are not coming into this country.

Mr. President, the Ensign amendment would codify the President's proposal to deploy the National Guard to the border. The President's proposal strikes a careful balance.

Over the next year, they would send up to 6,000 guardsmen. The following year, they would decrease this to a maximum of 3,000 guardsmen. As the guardsmen stand down, the Border Patrol would stand up, and in the end, we would have 6,000 more Border Patrolmen securing the border.

I remain concerned about the strain on the Guard. It is reassuring that the deployment will be limited in number and duration. I hope the administration will work closely with the Pentagon to ensure that we are not putting greater strain on those specialties that are needed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Also, I applaud the President's decision to use the Guard in a supporting role and not for direct law enforcement missions. The Guard is not trained for the civilian Border Patrol missions and its complex combination of law enforcement, civil rights, and human rights issues. Nor should we ask them to be, for this is not their mission. They should provide support to the Border Patrol.

We must also ensure that any Guard activity is coordinated with the Governors. I agree with the border State Governors that securing our borders, particularly for the long term, is a law enforcement function. We should not militarize the borders. And, in the short term, we should respect the desires of the border State Governors regarding the utilization of the Guard along the border.

I urge that my colleagues support this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds to respond.

Mr. President, briefly, regarding the limitations the Senator from Missouri has brought up, a third of the forces the President has envisioned would not have any limitations. Two-thirds would basically be on their annual missions of 21 days, and they are specifically for the perception that they are there for police enforcement and are doing what the Border Patrol agents do. We put in the bill specifically what they would be doing.

There is all the flexibility in the world for the Guard to do the mission they are being sent down there to do. I think the concerns being raised are unfounded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

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

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

Mr. President, this bill we are debating today, the immigration bill, will place a significant cost on the American taxpayers. I am particularly concerned that the provisions of this bill will impose a heavy strain on our social security system. That concern is why I am offering amendment number 3985.

The American public needs to understands what this bill would do. If enacted, it would allow the immigrants who receive amnesty to qualify for social security based on work performed prior to their amnesty. It allows people to qualify for social security based on work they did while they were illegally present in the United States and illegally working in the United States. Let me repeat that.

People who broke the law to come here and broke the law to work here can benefit from their conduct to collect social security. This bill is the pathway that allows that.

In some cases, illegal immigrants may have stolen an American citizen's identity. They may have stolen an American's social security number to fraudulently work. But it is that illegal conduct and fraudulent work that they will be allowed to use to qualify for social security.

Does this bill punish the people who stole an American citizen's identity? No, it does not. It rewards them. Does this bill consider the impact that the crime of identify theft had on the victim whose social security number was stolen? No, it does not. This bill gives them the full benefit of citizenship, with respect to social security benefits and rewards criminal conduct without any consideration for the victim.

There have been many media reports recently about illegal immigrants stealing Americans' social security numbers. To understand the potential scope of this problem, you have to un1erstand that every year employers are advised that nearly 800,000 employees do not have valid, I matching social security numbers. In too many cases, the number used belongs to someone else. And so, for a moment, I want the Senate to stop. I want my colleagues to think. And to consider the impact this theft and fraud has on the victims.

Rarely, does the Senate ever really consider the impact that crime has on the victim. Today Should be different. And so I am going to take a few moments to share with my colleagues a few of the stories of the victims of identity theft. In order to protect their privacy, I will only use the victim's first name.

Identify theft by illegal aliens has created many problems for Americans. Sometimes those problems involve the Internal Revenue Service. For example, Audra has been a stay-at-home mom since 2000. Over the last 3 years, the IRS has accused her of owing $1 million in back taxes. This is a picture of the first letter she received from the IRS saying she owed back taxes. Since that first letter, she has received many more.

Her story is clear. She has not worked in 6 years. Yet the IRS says she owes taxes for working the last three years. What she first thought was a mistake, later became clear. It was a case of identity theft. Her social security number was being used by at least 218 illegal immigrants, mostly in Texas, to obtain jobs.

Audra has obtained copies of the 218 W-2s that were used in 2004 by illegal immigrants using her Social Security number. This is a picture of the stack of those W-2s. In Audra's own words, she said, ``It was so overwhelming I couldn't be frustrated--I was just completely beyond that.'' She filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission. Her file at the Federal Trade Commission is very thick. Here is a picture of many of the documents in her file on this chart.

Identity theft by illegal immigrants has made it hard for some Americans to find a job of their own. When my staff spoke to Audra, she explained to them that she was not able to find a job of her own because of the theft of her Social Security number. This is a photo of the letter Audra received denying her employment because she is actually already employed by that same employer. Obviously, she is not, but someone else with her Social Security number is employed at that place of employment.

Audra is not the only American affected in this way. A few years ago, a woman named Linda applied for a job at a chain retailer, but her job application was turned down. Why? Because her potential employer told her that she was already working for that very same retailer. She, of course, knew better. She could not get a job because someone else had stolen her identity. Without knowing it, the thief also stole the job she could have been hired to do.

That is not what America should be about. People who want to work should be able to work. Identity theft by illegal immigrants has damaged many Americans' credit, making it hard for them to buy the basic necessities. In some cases, the victims of identity theft are denied social service benefits such as unemployment because records show they already have a job even though they are not working. In some cases, government records show they have many jobs all across the country.

I want to tell my colleagues about Caleb, who works in northern Nevada. He lives there with his wife and two children. Caleb is actually one of my constituents. This is a picture of Caleb and his daughter at the kitchen table. Caleb works hard as a construction worker to take care of his family. In December of 2003, Caleb was unable to find work because of the seasonal difficulties northern Nevada's construction industry faces. So Caleb applied for unemployment benefits. He was denied unemployment benefits. Why? Because he was told he was already working as a landscaper in Las Vegas. Many of my colleagues are probably not aware of the geography of Nevada. I am pretty confident that Caleb was not living in Reno and working in Las Vegas because that would mean he would have over a 1,000-mile commute every single day. Caleb and his wife contacted the employer of the identity thief. They learned that the person who used his Social Security number had previously given the employer at least 10 different Social Security numbers, and that person's resident alien card had expired.

In this picture, Caleb has many of the documents, including a copy of the expired resident alien card used by the person who stole his identity.

Not only does identity theft by illegal immigrants create problems for adults, it is also creates problems for young children, children who will likely have to deal with the consequences of someone stealing their Social Security number well into adulthood.

For example, Kelly's daughter is quite ambitious. Based on where she lives, and on where she works, she drives 80 miles each day to work at a steakhouse. I am sure her parents were surprised to learn about her commute since she does not even have a driver's license yet. In fact, Kelly's daughter has gotten off to quite an early start in life in the work world--considering she is only 5 years of age. Her Social Security number was being used by an illegal immigrant to work.

Stories like this are all too common. Many Southwest States such as Utah and Arizona, and even my home State of Nevada, have experienced a crime spree involving illegal immigrants using stolen identities of children. In one case in Utah, a child apparently owns a cleaning company and works as a prep cook at two restaurants in Salt Lake City. That is a lot of responsibility, especially for an 8-year-old boy. Another boy from Salt Lake City supposedly works for an express air freight company, quite an important job for an 11-year-old.

These stories are shocking. It is clear that illegal immigrants are purchasing false papers and using stolen Social Security numbers to obtain jobs. They are victimizing hard-working Americans, Americans who want to work. They are also victimizing these young children. The current Social Security policy and this bill will only make matters worse by granting benefits to those who are working here illegally.

I am offering an amendment to correct this problem. My amendment will help reduce this kind of document fraud. My amendment will also preserve the integrity of the Social Security system by ensuring that people are not able to receive Social Security benefits based on their prior unlawful activity.

I will explain my amendment to the American people and to the Senate. Under current law, individuals who work in the United States illegally and later obtain legal employment status can use their illegal work history to qualify for benefits. For example, if an illegal immigrant works in the United States for 9 years, and then receives legal status under this bill, the immigrant would qualify for full Social Security benefits after just 1 year of legal work. Essentially, the illegal immigrants can go back to the Social Security Administration and ask them for credit for his or her illegal work.

What is important to understand is that in order to go back to the Social Security system, the illegal immigrant must get legal status in some way. This bill is an avenue that gives them that legal status. This bill opens the door for illegal immigrants to get Social Security based on their illegal work history. My amendment closes that door.

I know some of my colleagues may argue that the illegal immigrants paid into the system, and as a result they should be able to collect benefits based on paying into the system. To those colleagues who feel that way, I say this: First, the crime of identity theft and Social Security fraud are not victimless crimes. The victims of these crimes are American citizens and legal immigrants. My staff has spoken to

some of these victims. Some victims' Social Security records are such a mess that the Social Security Administration has wiped out all of the work history from the victim's account. That is the only way they believed they could get a handle on the fraud associated with these folks' accounts. By wiping out all work history, the victim's own legal work history is also deleted. Basically, the victims is forced to start over to qualify for future Social Security benefits.

The Social Security Administration advised the victim that the victim's records are so bad that their only option was to erase the victim's work history. The victims can rebuild their accounts if they can produce their old W-2s. How many people in America can produce them? Some, maybe. If you are like me, and keep records forever, you will not have a problem. But for most Americans, who do not keep their past W-2s and old records, it will be impossible to prove their work history. As a result, some victims end up losing their ability to collect their Social Security based on their own legal work history.

At the same time, this bill would open the door to give Social Security benefits based on illegal work history. If Members oppose this amendment, Members are saying they want to reward illegal conduct with Social Security benefits while American citizens cannot collect their rightly earned benefits. This is simply unfair. That is not what America is about.

Second, Social Security is a system based on expectancy. For the illegal immigrants who paid into the system using a stolen Social Security card, they never did so thinking they would earn a retirement benefit. They did so, and I don't blame them, simply to get a job. They could not have possibly ever envisioned we would pass this bill in the Senate. They could not ever have thought that the Senate would let them go back and petition for Social Security benefits. They never had a reasonable expectation we would do this and, as a result, that they would be able to receive those benefits in the first place.

Third, for the vast majority of perpetrators who engaged in this kind of identity theft, the only way they would ever be able to petition the Social Security Administration is if we pass this bill. It is reasonable to oppose, as a condition to amnesty, a requirement that the people receiving amnesty give up or surrender their rights to petition for Social Security benefits for their previous illegal work.

I ask my colleagues to consider the message the Senate is sending to the victims if we do not agree to my amendment. The victim has already paid a heavy price. If the Senate does not agree to my amendment, the government will be saying: We reward the criminal and want to continue to punish the victim.

We will also be inviting future fraud. How, you might ask? If my amendment is not agreed to, there will be no way, none, for the Social Security Administration to determine who actually did the work associated with a particular Social Security number. If my amendment is not agreed to, this bill will create an incentive for people to engage in a second kind of fraud, one that is based on fraudulent use of W-2s to petition for illegal work credit. There would be no way for the Social Security Administration to give proper credit for that work if more than one person petitions for that credit.

I ask my colleagues to consider the burden this will place on the Social Security Administration itself. As of 2003, there were 255 million records in the Earnings Suspense File. That file is where Social Security places records when the name and social security number that is used do not match. How can the Social Security Administration process tens of millions of petitions to receive credit for illegally performed work? Without my amendment, the Social Security Administration will be inundated with petitions with no way to know how to handle them.

The promise of Social Security is for citizens and legal residents of the United States. Social Security was not intended for individuals who enter our country illegally, purchase fraudulent green cards and documentation on the black market, and use them to get jobs. It is wrong to allow people who have broken our laws to receive such a reward, especially when such activity places such a heavy toll on victims.

We should not now reward individuals who have knowingly engaged in illegal activity. We should not adopt a policy that will reward this illegal behavior while at the same time continuing to subject the innocent to further victimization. Rewarding illegal behavior is insulting to those immigrants who have played by the rules to qualify for benefits. It is also insulting to hard-working Americans who are paying into the Social Security system.

My amendment allows immigrants to begin accumulating credit to qualify for Social Security only after they have been assigned a valid Social Security number. It does not allow illegal immigrants to receive credit for their past illegal work. This approach is responsible and it is common sense. Especially when it comes to how the Social Security Administration will function.

I hope one of the principles we can reach consensus on is that illegal behavior should not be rewarded at the expense of victimizing American citizens. I cannot go home to Nevada and tell the people we allowed Social Security benefits to go to people who have worked in the United States illegally, especially when Nevadans are too often the victims of this kind of crime.

Mr. President, I will close now by making one additional observation. Under current law, it is a felony to steal and use somebody's Social Security number. Under this bill, we are waiving that felony. That, in and of itself, is amnesty for the crime of identity theft. I do not think that the Senate should go beyond granting amnesty for criminal identity theft. It is one thing to say that the perpetrator of the crime cannot be prosecuted for that felony, but it is quite another to allow the perpetrator to collect Social Security benefits. It is fundamentally unfair to do both when there are victims, like the ones I have talked about today.

So I hope people will see the common sense of this amendment and will, in a bipartisan fashion, overwhelmingly adopt this amendment. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator, could I spend 5 minutes responding to a couple things, and then I would be willing to yield to the Senator for 5 minutes in morning business.

Just to respond to a couple of things the Senator from Massachusetts talked about, that section 614 and a provision in section 601 in this legislation on page 395 would ensure that aliens who received legal status, amnesty, whatever you want to call it, cannot be prosecuted for document fraud. He said they weren't receiving amnesty. If there was a felony they were committing, and now they can't be prosecuted, that sounds like amnesty to me.

A couple other points he brought up: Legal aliens who were here and who overstayed their visas have a legal Social Security number. They are paying into the system with a legal Social Security number. Even though they are here illegally, they would still be able to collect benefits.

Another point I want to address that the Senator from Massachusetts brought up concerned the Social Security Administration. These illegal workers would come to them and petition for the benefits, and they would have to prove that they actually worked where they worked, they paid in the taxes, and things like that. Let's try to think about the burden that this would place on the Social Security Administration itself.

Currently, there are 255 million earning suspense files. Those are the ones where the Social Security number and the work don't match, 255 million. Try to imagine how many of these are going to come forward with the Social Security Administration where people are trying to prove something to gain benefits. They are going to be overwhelmed. What is that going to do to the normal processing for people who have problems with their Social Security benefits? All of us have case workers back in our States who deal with seniors who have legitimate Social Security problems. Sometimes there are mistakes made. We have had people who have actually received a letter where the Social Security Administration told them that they had died. It was kind of a surprise to them. But they called us, and we were able to bring them back to life. We jokingly refer to these cases as Lazarus cases. It is a situation where they need speedy help. If the Social Security Administration is burdened with all of these millions of potential cases, it just boggles the mind how people could be against this amendment.

The next point I want to make is that the Senator from Massachusetts said that this illegal immigrant who is now legalized or regularized, whatever term you want to put on it, cannot go to the Social Security Administration, and they have to prove with documents. We have seen the kind of fraudulent documents used in the country today. These documents are not that difficult to produce, to defraud. There is a great incentive for them to do that. Once again, it will be an extra burden on the Social Security Administration trying to prove or disprove whether these documents are real.

The last point I want to make, the Senator said the people they are regularizing in this bill have to pay a fine. They have to pay back taxes. We have heard that over and over again: They have to pay back income taxes. They don't have to pay back Social Security taxes, the FICA taxes they didn't pay, only the income taxes. So let's be completely open and honest about what this bill does and about what my amendment seeks to correct.

When we are considering this amendment, we absolutely must consider what it is going to do to the Social Security Administration, what it is going to do to the trust fund and, mostly, what it is going to do to the victims. Rewarding illegal behavior while we are not taking care of the victims in the United States fundamentally is unfair.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I wish to ask my friend from Arizona a couple of questions about the bill and about my amendment in particular. The bill does not require that the people whose status is adjusted pay all back taxes. The bill only requires that people pay any back income taxes. There is no mention of FICA taxes in the bill. Is the Senator aware of that distinction?

First, if the alien is self-employed, that is not correct. Remember, the employer pays half and sends in those funds.

That is correct. But the bottom line is if they owe back FICA taxes under this bill, they do not have to pay those back taxes.

I have another question for my friend from Arizona. Is he aware that it is a felony to use someone's Social Security number?

Under this legislation, we forgive that felony. We grant amnesty for that felony.

Right. But, Mr. President, in Sections 601 and 614 of the legislation, it actually ensures that aliens who receive legal status cannot be prosecuted for document fraud, including the false use of Social Security numbers. Is the Senator aware of that?

Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Arizona that many people are paying into the system. They paid into the system with no expectation of getting social security's benefit because they didn't know we would be enacting a bill like this. They paid into the system simply because that was the price to pay to get a job in the United States. The immigrant knew they were using an illegal Social Security number but without regards of the impact of the victim. I have reviewed case after case related to identity theft and Social Security fraud. These cases are occurring all over the United States. In every case, in every State, where someone's Social Security number was stolen by an illegal immigrant to use to find work, the victim's credit history is destroyed. Sometimes their work history is too. Earlier I talked about Caleb, a gentleman in Nevada. The illegal immigrant who used Caleb's Social Security number was not trying to harm that person but he did. Caleb applied for unemployment but couldn't get it because the agency said he was working when, in fact, he wasn't. He lives in Reno. They said he was working in Las Vegas. It was an illegal immigrant using his Social Security number in Las Vegas.

I never said this amendment is going to prevent identity theft. What I have said is that it is not right for somebody to steal somebody else's identity--granted for the noble purpose of getting a job--and reward the theft by giving work credit that counts towards Social Security. We should consider the victims who are forced to deal with the terrible consequences of the crime.

I will make two other points. The chairman of the Finance Committee supports this amendment. One of the reasons the chairman of the Finance Committee supports this amendment is because the Social Security Administration will not be able to make determinations with respect to the earnings suspense files that the Senator from Arizona referenced. As of 2003, there were 255 million instances where the social security number did not match the name given the employer. This bill will legalize those who are in the workforce today--the 7 million or so in the workforce out of the 12 million who are in the country. The effect of this amnesty over the next 10 years, will require the Social Security Administration to hire nearly an additional 2,000 employees to handle the cases of people who worked illegally, received amnesty under this bill, and are now applying for this benefit. A benefit they earned illegally.

Point No. 2 is, it is going to cost $1.7 billion in administrative costs--$1.7 billion in administrative costs. It does not include any future costs in benefits that the United States will have to pay. Some may say that the immigrants will have earned the benefit. But the Senate does not even know what amnesty will cost. The cost estimates for these policies are not known. My amendment is absolutely the right thing to do. Illegal immigrants did not expect to ever receive this benefit. They were using somebody's Social Security number or a made up one. They did so to get a job. I can appreciate that. I appreciate somebody trying to come to this country to better themselves. I don't believe we should reward the conduct of identity theft by giving people the right to claim the work history for purposes of Social Security.

Our Social Security trust fund is already in trouble. We all know that. This will further put the Social Security trust fund in trouble. The costs could be potentially huge. We don't even know that in this bill. That is why I think we should adopt this amendment.

Mr. President, through the Chair, I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania if it would be possible at least to make my statement, lay down the amendment, and then we can consider it at the appropriate time based on the two managers of the bill.

Mr. President, did I understand that prior to the debate, I would have 10 minutes?

Mr. President, I suggest we modify the unanimous consent to accommodate the minority and those who want to vote. I would be first recognized for 10 minutes right after the vote on Kyl to lay down my amendment, debate for 10 minutes, followed by Senator Nelson, followed by Senator Landrieu.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. President, my understanding of the earlier unanimous consent agreement was that I would be recognized followed by Senator Nelson.

Mr. President, we have spent a great deal of time talking about how to proceed with tonight's debate. We have been trying to work out whether we would have a vote on my amendment No. 4076.

I send a modified version of my amendment to the desk which has been seen by both Senator Byrd and Senator Gregg who had previously expressed problems with the text of the amendment. The modification strikes a particular paragraph which had dealt with the questions of which agency would fund the program if the cost exceeded a certain dollar amount. I would ask for immediate consideration of the modified amendment.

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

Mr. President, I will speak just briefly, because it is late. I am not going to take up a lot of time, but this is a very important amendment. The substance of this amendment is something that I have been

working on for over a month. During the last Congressional recess, I went down to Yuma, AZ, where the President was today. I saw firsthand what an extraordinary job our Border Patrol is doing. I also observed firsthand how undermanned the agency is and how overwhelmed they are with the numbers that are coming across our southern border.

When I was at the border, I asked a question of the Border Patrol personnel. That question was: Could you use more National Guardsmen at the border, beyond those in the Counter Drug Program, to help you with your mission of protecting and securing our borders? The overwhelming answer was that they would absolutely welcome our National Guard in larger numbers down on the border.

The Border Patrol was very clear. It would create problems if the National Guard were to come down to the border to carry on law enforcement duties like arresting, detaining, and questioning detainees. Each of those things are part of the speciality role that the Border Patrol should do. They are, after all, highly trained law enforcement personnel while the National Guard is trained in other areas, areas for which the Border Patrol requires support.

In his Monday night address, the President proposed using up to 6,000 National Guardsmen on the border this year. Their presence would help multiply the force of the Border Patrol that is currently on the border. What do I mean by that? In many instances, the Border Patrol is taken away from their normal duties when they have to, for instance, perform a medical rescue of somebody who has gone into distress. This is actually a common occurrence in the southwest desert. Immigrants crossing the desert become dehydrated and nearly die. Some of the Border Patrol surveillance cameras might pick it up, or the alien pulls a distress beacon to signal they need help, and the Border Patrol actually goes to rescue them. This is something the National Guard is very well trained to do. When they are on the border, the National Guard can fulfill that mission which will free up the Border Patrol to perform some of the other functions of their duties, like arrest and detention.

When the National Guard trains today, when personnel are performing their 2 to 3 weeks of training, they are building roads, building fences, and building bridges. They do all of these things as part of their training. Except most of the time when they are training, after they build something they are required to tear it down. It is a training exercise. What this amendment envisions is that what they will build, fences, barriers, and roadways, will all be essential infrastructure needed to secure the border. The National Guard can use training time to build roads down on the border, except this time they won't have to tear them down. What they build will actually be permanent structures.

We had a hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday. The National Guard told the committee that they are very excited about this mission, about what they will be accomplishing. Instead of building a road and tearing it up with a tractor, they will actually be building a road that is going to help secure the United States of America. I have received e-mails from National Guardsmen in my State that say they believe in the objective, they believe in the mission, and they are very excited about it.

I want to be clear. Some people have erroneously reported in the media that the National Guard would be on the border and would be arresting, they would be shooting at people, that they would be militarizing the border and performing law enforcement activities. That is not true. Let me tell you exactly what we have put in this amendment that states exactly what the National Guard will be authorized to do. They will be authorized to conduct ground reconnaissance activities, airborne reconnaissance activities, logistical support, provision of translation services in training, administrative support services, technical training services, emergency medical assistance and services, communications services, rescue of aliens in peril, and construction of roadways, patrol roads, fences, barriers, and other facilities to secure the southern land border of the United States. They will also cooperate with ground and air transportation.

We are very clear on what their mission is going to be down there. I appreciate the work of Senator Craig on this issue. I see him here on the Senate floor. He has been one of the biggest proponents of using the National Guard down on the border, and I appreciate the driving force that he has been in the United States Senate to bring everybody's attention to this issue.

I would be happy to yield.

Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes so that I will be able to yield for a question.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his question. I was going to address his very point. The way that the Border Patrol, the National Guard, and the administration have developed their plan envisions that about one-third of the 6,000 Guardsmen would actually be on the border for longer than the 21 day maximum. My amendment mirrors their plan. It sets forth that two-thirds of the overall personnel will perform their required 21 days of annual training down on the border. That time is time that the Guardsmen committed to when they signed up. The amendment also says that about a third of the force, consisting of command personnel and guardsmen who are necessary for integration purposes, will be down there full time. They will be there full time to ensure some continuity. The personnel who are rotating in will need to have leadership that can organize and who have some institutional memory. The full time personnel can say to the rotating personnel: you need to go here, this is what you will do, and we need you to work with this other group.

During our hearing yesterday--this very issue came up--according to the National Guard the numbers that the President has committed will work. They have said that this mission can be done, that there is absolutely no problem for them to operate in this fashion, considering they will be going through the training anyway. Personnel will have to go through the 2 to 3 weeks of training and this set up will

actually improve the training they are getting.

I am happy to.

Mr. President, to address that question, we actually talked about that in yesterday's hearing. It was one of the questions that was asked. What the National Guard is going to do, with the Department of Defense, is take the equipment down there, and it will stay down there. If the Illinois National Guard comes down, they won't come down with their own equipment; they will use the equipment that is there. So it will stay there for the 2 years, for the duration, what they need. So that is going to be paid for separately. It is part of the $1.9 billion the administration had requested, so it does not come out of the normal National Guard budget, it doesn't come out of what we are trying to replenish of the National Guard's that are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those are excellent questions. We have addressed those. We have addressed those as to how the administration policy is going to happen.

This is the last point I will make. This is a critical stopgap, but it is only a stopgap because we can only train about 1,000 Border Patrol agents a year. It was my amendment actually to ramp us up to 10,000 more Border Patrol agents in the intelligence bill last year. We can't do even the 2,000 that bill envisioned, and we certainly can't get to the 10,000 right way. This bill before us needs this if you are going to have the temporary guest worker program. This National Guard is the temporary measure that we need to fill in so we actually secure the borders. 1I appreciate very much the indulgence of the manager of the bill. We look forward to further debate, if people have that. I really appreciate your taking the time to allow us to fit in tonight.

Reserving the right to object, may I hear the unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, we have been trying to get in the amendment queue for a couple of days. We would love to get locked in, along with this.

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the life of Chic Hecht, a friend, a leader, and a great Nevadan. Chic served my home State and this country with honor, humility, and great devotion. He leaves behind the legacy of a true statesman, an intelligence officer, a successful businessman, and most importantly, a committed husband and father.

For me, Chic's legacy is that of a public servant who was fiercely loyal, unwavering in his principles, and an all-around decent human being.

Chic was drafted into the Army after college and served as an intelligence officer in Berlin during the Korean war. Chic retained a lifelong membership in the National Military Intelligence Association, and in 1988, was inducted into the Army Intelligence Hall of Fame.

Chic served in the Nevada State Senate for more than a decade before winning a U.S. Senate seat in what has been called the biggest political upset in our State's history. During his term in the Senate, Chic served on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee; the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee; and the Select Committee on Intelligence. In the Senate, Chic worked with President Reagan in persuading the Soviet Union to lift restrictions on the emigration of Jews--a part of his legacy that will endure for generations. Chic went on to serve 4 years as the U.S. Ambassador to the Bahamas.

But it was Nevada that was always home to Chic. And Chic never lost that down-to-earth, man of the people charisma that won him friends wherever he went. While his charm helped him make friends throughout his life, it was his loyalty that made him a lifelong friend.

I will miss Chic. He was the first to step up when I was being criticized, and he believed in me when very few others did. In politics, you learn quickly who your real friends are, and Chic was a real friend.

He left the Senate more than a decade before I took office, but I am well aware of the impact he made. Chic was a great role model, and I hope to carry on his legacy and the lessons he taught me: to be fiercely loyal, unwavering in principles, and an all-around decent human being.

Chic will be missed, but he has set an example for us all to follow. God bless him.

Mr. President, next week, the family, friends, and comrades of 1SG Carlos Saenz will gather to say a final goodbye as he is laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery. I pay tribute to his life and legacy.

Carlos Saenz will be buried at Arlington in the company of some of this Nation's greatest fighters, leaders, and explorers--men and women who changed the course of our country. It is completely fitting that Carlos Saenz be laid to rest there because Carlos represents all that is great about America.

Carlos was born in Mexico. He became a naturalized citizen and considered himself extremely lucky and proud to be an American, as we all should. And for more than 25 years, he gave back to this country with every fiber of his being.

Carlos entered active duty in 1978 and was a member of the Nevada National Guard from 1990 to 1992 serving with the 72nd Military Police Company out of Henderson, NV, in Desert Storm and Desert Shield. In June of 1994, he was assigned to the Guard's 1st Squadron, 221st Armor Battalion, Las Vegas, until January 2000. In January 2000, he became an instructor at the 421st Regional Training Institute in Stead, NV. Then, in May 2002, he joined the Guard's 1864th Transportation Company, in Henderson, until he was honorably discharged in January 2004. He then was assigned to the Individual Ready Reserve. He earned the rank of first sergeant in 2001.

Carlos was in Iraq as a trained civil affairs noncommissioned officer assigned to the 490th Civil Affairs Battalion, Abilene, TX. He had an extensive military education and had received countless awards for his service. Carlos had also worked for the Nevada Test Site's security firm for more than two decades where they are remembering him as ``a patriot, a great American, and a good man.''

Nowhere is his loss being felt more than at his home in Las Vegas, where he is being remembered and mourned by his wife, Nanette; his son, Juan; his parents; and brothers and sisters.

I had the opportunity to speak with Nanette Saenz yesterday. I called to extend my condolences and appreciation on behalf of this country. It shouldn't surprise me, but I am always taken aback by the strength and pride of the families of our fallen heroes. It makes sense that our brave servicemen and women have equally brave support systems at home. Nanette was no exception. As the family made clear in a statement, they ``know the legacy he leaves behind while serving in a profession where `all give some, but some give all'.'' Carlos loved being a soldier and loved what he was doing.

We are fortunate that someone like Carlos came to this country. He died as an American--defending his country, fighting for freedom, and working to keep his family and all our families safe and secure. May God keep him close and watch over his family. And may God continue to bless America with people like Carlos and Nanette Saenz.

Mr. President, I will not be very long. I will be very brief. I

want to speak about the bill that the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Wyoming, has brought forth from the HELP Committee.

I have the honor of serving with the chairman on the HELP Committee. I think he has done a great job crafting this bill, which will offer more people the ability to afford health insurance in America.

We have heard reports about how many uninsured Americans are in our country today. The fundamental point is that a lot of Americans simply cannot afford to buy health insurance. And, many uninsured Americans are employed by small businesses. I have built, owned, and operated two animal hospitals, veterinary hospitals. As a small business owner, it is very difficult to afford to buy health insurance, not only for yourself, but, obviously, for your employees. One of the reasons it is difficult to buy health insurance relates to purchasing power. When you have a small number of people, it is difficult to go to insurance companies and negotiate effectively for good prices. If you have 20 employees versus a company that has 20,000 employees, the company with 20,000 employees has a lot more buying power and, therefore, can negotiate prices down more effectively than the smaller company.

The bill before us today establishes small business health plans, which will allow small businesses, such as the veterinarians, the restaurant owners, and the physical therapists to band together through their associations, and negotiate for health care coverage at prices they can afford. What this means is that a lot of people who are currently uninsured can become part of the insurance market. There is also a side benefit for the people who already have health insurance. A lot of people who are currently uninsured are young, healthy people who happen to want some type of health insurance coverage. If we bring these individuals into the health insurance market, they will help spread out the risk, which lowers costs for everyone else.

Now, we have heard criticism from the other side of the aisle saying that we are not maintaining the mandates that a lot of States have put forward. Opponents say that some people are going to be without coverage for mammograms, cancer treatments, and other services.

These same people today have no health insurance coverage whatsoever--isn't basic coverage better than no coverage at all? We would love to offer and be able to afford to offer everyone every type of service possible. But the reality is that a lot of people cannot afford health insurance plans today because insurance coverage has become too expensive. One of the reasons for this is that small businesses cannot pool together across state lines. Another reason has to do with mandates.

We talk about a lot of different proposals that can lower the cost of health care for hard-working Americans. Everybody campaigns and tells their constituents: We have to do something about the high cost of health care. We must do something. Let's act.

We have an opportunity to act now in the Senate. There is a good bill before us. We need to act on this bill so that uninsured Americans can come into the insurance market.

This bill is estimated, by an actuarial firm, to lower the cost of health insurance for small employers by as much as 12 percent. This is a significant number. Every dollar you lower the cost of health insurance makes more and more people able to afford it.

It is time for us to enact legislation that is actually going to be good for the American people, a proposal that will allow more people to be able to afford health care coverage.

Mr. President, the bill before us today goes a long way toward making health insurance more affordable for small business owners and employees. I encourage this Senate to get behind this legislation. Let's move it forward, work out the legislative differences with the House, and send a bill to the President that will help Americans afford health care insurance today.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the medical liability reform bills before us today: one is a comprehensive reform bill that I introduced, and the other specifically deals with OB/GYNs, which Senator Santorum introduced.

There are a couple of very important points to make on this legislation. First of all, Senator Nelson, a friend of mine, just spoke about the number of uninsured Americans. Over the next couple of days, we are going to vote on legislation to establish Small Business Health Plans. This is good legislation that is intended to help reduce the number of uninsured.

But another problem related to the number of uninsured Americans is the high cost of health care. The cost of health care is making it too expensive for people to afford health insurance. One of the primary drivers of health care costs is increasing medical liability premiums for health care providers.

Doctors are being forced out of their practices because they cannot afford to practice anymore. We saw the trauma center in southern Nevada close for a 10-day period. It serves 10,000 square miles. People died because of the closure. We have also seen maternity wards close across the country. Neurosurgeons and other specialists are no longer taking calls unless the calls are for cases that are not very risky. Specialists can't afford to take high-risk cases because they risk losing everything they have based on seeing one case.

I have a good friend in southern Nevada who practices obstetrics. In his practice, he specializes in high-risk pregnancies. Because of the medical liability problems that we have seen in the past several years, his insurance company limits the number of high-risk pregnancies with which he can assist.

If you are a woman and you are pregnant with a high-risk pregnancy, it would seem to me that you would want the best of the best to take care of you. That only makes sense. But because of the medical liability crisis we are facing in this country, the best of the best are limited in the number of cases they can see.

If you are a doctor in America today--this is becoming a truism--you will be sued. If you practice long enough, you will be sued in America today. We need to deal with the number of frivolous lawsuits that are clogging our legal system.

Every American needs to ask themselves this fundamental question: If you were in an automobile accident or if you needed care in an emergency room, and the specialist you wanted to see wasn't available, wasn't there, was no longer practicing, or wouldn't take the call, would you accept the reason that this happened is because this body, the Senate, wouldn't even take up a bill and debate medical liability reform, which could bring down health care costs, as it has in several States across America? If you were a mother who had a high-risk pregnancy or any type of pregnancy, and you couldn't get obstetrical care, how would you feel if the reason you couldn't get care was because your doctor left practice or left the State because medical liability insurance premiums were too high?

We have a serious problem. According to the American Medical Association, 21 States are in crisis today, 6 States are not, and the rest of the States are headed toward crisis. The six States that are not in crisis have all passed meaningful medical liability reform. The bill before us today is modeled after one of those States: the State of Texas. The State of Texas has a $250,000 cap for a judgment against a health care provider. In addition, the patient can be awarded up to $250,000 for a judgment against one health care institution. If two or more institutions are involved, the patient can receive up to $500,000, with each institution not liable for more than $250,000. Thus, injured patients can be awarded noneconomic damages for pain and suffering totaling $750,000. The legislation has no limits on economic damages for necessary health care expenses that you may incur over your lifetime. You can sue for unlimited economic damages. But, the caps on noneconomic damages are key to whether the legislation is effective.

Let's compare a couple of States, Texas and Pennsylvania. Texas has enacted meaningful medical liability insurance reform; Pennsylvania has not. These are just two examples. In Texas, doctors are moving back to the State. As a matter of fact, nine hundred doctors specializing in emergency care and high-risk procedures have moved to Texas since 2003, when Texas law was enacted. Texas infants and children now have better access to specialists. Ninety-four pediatric specialists alone have moved into the State. In contrast, Pennsylvania doctors are leaving the State. I believe there are more medical schools in Pennsylvania than practically anywhere else in the country, yet doctors are leaving the State--not because they don't love Pennsylvania, but because they cannot afford to practice in Pennsylvania. In Texas, the premiums for medical liability insurance policies are going down. In Pennsylvania, they continue to skyrocket. Because of medical liability reform in Texas, 30 new medical liability insurers have come into the State to write policies for doctors. In Pennsylvania, medical liability insurers are leaving the State.

The difference here is that doctors in Texas can shop among 30 different medical liability insurers. And, market forces bring insurance prices down. Because of all of this, it is becoming less expensive to practice medicine in Texas and more expensive to practice in Pennsylvania.

The bill I offered, which is before us today, is modeled after the Texas legislation. The bill establishes caps on noneconomic damages. The bill also limits attorneys' fees. This provision will ensure that patients receive a larger percentage of their damage awards. I believe that the person who is injured with a true medical malpractice case should get the award instead of having the award go to higher and higher attorneys' fees.

My legislation also includes an expert witness provision to ensure that relevant medical experts serve as trial witnesses. This provision is extremely important. Today, if you have a medical liability case before a jury, they bring in so-called professional witnesses to testify who are used to further abuse the system. There is a whole industry of these so-called professional witnesses who travel around the country and testify. The problem is that a lot of these so-called professional witnesses are not experts in the field in which they are testifying. This bill says that if you are, for instance, testifying in a neurology case, then you should be a specialist in neurology. I know this is common sense, but that is not the way our courts work today. This bill would require a specialist or an expert to truly be an expert in the field in which they are testifying.

This bill has been contentious for several years. The trial lawyers and their cohorts spent $182 million over the last few elections. And they have gotten back out, just in medical liability awards, $18 billion. That is a 10,000-percent return on their investment in politics.

We cannot allow the trial lawyers to control this debate. We cannot allow the trial lawyers to say: We are not even going to allow for debate of this bill on the floor of the Senate. That is what is happening. This bill isn't even going to be allowed to have an up-or- down vote. Some people say: Let's have insurance reform. Let's bring it all on. Let's have those amendments and let's debate it. But the other side of the aisle is not even allowing us to debate this bill on the floor of the Senate.

This crisis is not going away; it is getting worse in America. We must act as a responsible body. It is unfortunate that the greatest deliberative body supposedly in the history of the world can't even deliberate on this bill. It is time to bring real medical liability reform to the floor of the Senate and debate it. Let's let the American people see what the medical liability reform debate is all about. Let's go forward so that we can save our doctors, nurses, nurse midwives, and other health care providers, so that when patients need care, they get that care.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to speak in morning business and ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, yesterday, I introduced the Medical Care Access Protection Act to address our Nation's medical liability crisis.

High medical liability insurance premiums are threatening the stability of our Nation's health care delivery system. These rates are forcing many doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers to move out of high-liability States, limit the scope of their practices, and even close their doors permanently.

The crisis is affecting more and more patients and is threatening access to reliable quality health care services in many States across our country.

Because of unaffordable medical liability insurance premiums, it is now common for obstetricians to no longer deliver babies, and for other specialists to no longer provide emergency calls or provide certain high-risk procedures.

Ask yourself this question: What if you were in need of an emergency procedure? What if you were the woman who had a high-risk pregnancy and could not find a specialist to provide you with the care you needed? The medical liability crisis is threatening access to reliable quality health care services this is happening to patients all over America.

Additionally, some emergency departments have been forced to temporarily shut down in recent years. In my home State of Nevada, our level I trauma center closed for 10 days in 2002. This closure left every patient within a 10,000 square mile area unserved by a level I trauma center.

Jim Lawson, unfortunately, was one of those in need of the trauma unit at that time. Jim lived in Las Vegas, and was just one month shy of his 60th birthday. He had recently returned from visiting his daughter in California. When he returned, he was injured in a severe car accident.

Jim should have been taken to University Medical Center's level I trauma center, but it was closed. Instead, Jim was taken to another emergency room, where he was to be stabilized and then transferred to Salt Lake City's trauma center. Tragically, Jim never made it that far. He died that day due to cardiac arrest caused by blunt force from physical trauma.

Why was Nevada's only level I trauma center closed? A simple fact: Medical liability premiums could not be afforded by the doctors, and there were not enough doctors to provide care. The State had to actually step in and take over the liability to reopen the trauma center.

More than 35 percent of neurosurgeons have altered their emergency or trauma call coverage because of the medical liability crisis. This means that patients with head injuries or in need of neurosurgical services must be transferred to other facilities, delaying much needed care.

An example of this problem was brought to my attention by Dr. Alamo of Henderson, Nevada. Dr. Alamo was presented with a teenager suffering from myasthenia gravis. She was in a crisis and in need of immediate medical treatment. Because of the medical liability situation, there was no emergency neurologist on call to assist this young woman. Dr. Alamo called several in the area, and none of them wanted to take her case because of the medical liability situation. So Dr. Alamo had the young woman transported to California by helicopter to receive the medical care she needed.

These kinds of situations should not happen and should not be forced to happen because of the medical liability crisis we have in America today. Stories such as these are becoming all too common across our country.

I recently heard of seven patients who died in Chester County, Pennsylvania, because they did not have access to neurosurgical care. These patients were transported to neighboring counties instead of being treated locally where there was no available neurosurgeon. Some of these patients died during transport, and others died while on the operating table. This is unacceptable.

Women's health care is also in serious jeopardy. In Pennsylvania, the legal climate caused nine maternity wards to close over the past several years. And hundreds of OB/GYNs have left the State, retired, or limited their services. This story is being repeated all over America.

The bottom line is that patients cannot get the health care they need when they need it most. By definition, I believe this is a medical crisis. This crisis is affecting more and more patients, and it is threatening access to care.

To address the growing medical liability crisis in my State of Nevada, legislation was enacted that includes a cap on noneconomic damages and a cap on total damages for trauma care.

In order to control health care costs and make health care more readily available, we must extend similar protections to other States.

Our entire Nation needs serious medical liability reform now.

Without Federal legislation, the exodus of these providers from the practice of medicine will continue, and patients will find it increasingly difficult to obtain needed care. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue; this is a patient issue. Simply put, patients cannot find access to care when they need it most in many areas.

I introduced the Medical Care Access Protection Act to address the national crisis our doctors, hospitals, and those needing health care face today. My legislation is a comprehensive medical liability reform measure. The bill sets reasonable limits on noneconomic damages, while also providing for unlimited economic damages.

The Medical Care Access Protection Act is a responsible reform measure that includes joint liability and collateral source improvements, and limits

on attorney fees according to a sliding award scale.

My legislation also includes an expert witness provision to ensure that relevant medical experts serve as trial witnesses instead of so- called ``professional witnesses'' who are used to further abuse the system and further drive up medical costs.

My bill also preserves States' rights by keeping the State medical liability statutes in place and by allowing States that enact medical liability reform bills in the future to supersede the Federal limits on damages.

The Medical Care Access Protection Act uses the Texas style of caps on noneconomic damages which has brought real reform to the Texas liability system. This provides a cap of $250,000 for a judgment against a physician or a health care professional. In addition, the patient can be awarded up to $250,000 for a judgment against one health care institution. Judgments against two or more health care institutions cannot exceed $500,000, with each institution liable for not more than $250,000. Thus the noneconomic damages can total $750,000.

The Texas style of caps on noneconomic damages is working. Patients are experiencing better access to health care, and Texas communities are finding it easier to recruit new doctors. At least 3,000 new doctors have established practices in Texas since the law's passage in 2003. Many of these doctors are serving in medically underserved areas of the State. Some counties, such as Cameron County along the Texas- Mexico border, are experiencing unprecedented success in physician recruitment--the opposite of what is happening in Pennsylvania.

The number of medical specialists in Texas is also growing. Patients have access to more specialists and emergency room physicians. Since 2003, Texas has gained a total of 93 orthopedic surgeons and more than 80 OB/GYNs.

Insurance costs have decreased significantly for doctors and hospitals. Medical liability rates, which had been out of control, have been going down. Physicians' insurance rates had risen by as much as 54 percent in the last few years. But with medical liability reform, physicians in Texas have seen their rates drop by a significant amount. More than 4,000 Texas physicians have opened new professional liability policies. Some of these doctors are new to the State.

The medical liability structure in Texas is working. These types of outcomes should be shared by every State and ultimately every patient in America. The American Medical Association has removed Texas from its list of States experiencing a medical liability crisis. It should be our goal that every State in America be removed from the crisis list.

Let's put an end to this crisis once and for all. Let's enact meaningful medical liability reform today.

The Medical Care Access Protection Act is not a battle of right versus left; it is a battle of right versus wrong. This bill is the right prescription for patients. We need to secure patient access to quality health care services when they need it most.

Let's make sure expectant mothers have access to OB/GYNs and trauma care victims have access to necessary services in their hour of most critical need. And let's make sure we continue to provide patients with the opportunity to receive affordable, accessible, and available health care for years to come.

The Medical Care Access Protection Act is substantially different from legislation we have brought to the Senate floor in previous years, and it warrants serious consideration.

We are going to have a vote on whether to even debate this bill next week. The American people need to contact their Senators. They need to say: Let's bring the bill to the floor and have an open and honest debate on this measure. Are you going to stand with the trial lawyers, or are you going to stand with the patients in America? That is the question we have to ask ourselves. It is time for us to stand with the patients. If the people of America want change, they will have to contact their legislators. This has to be a grassroots effort that rises up from across the country.

I believe the time for action is now. As we consider this bill, I hope Senators will put aside partisan differences and political alliances and will put the patients of America first.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the American taxpayers are fed up. They are tired of the pork projects and the billions of dollars being spent on unaccountable, unnecessary, and wasteful Federal spending. Whether spending is a result of earmarks, or the often unsupervised process of Federal agencies awarding grants, spending is out of control.

Americans work hard every day, and they struggle to meet the heavy tax burden that Washington imposes on them. Despite their struggle and sacrifice, Washington has failed to ensure that Americans' tax dollars are being spent wisely. The American public believes, and they are right, that Congress has lost sight of the fact that every dollar we spend here in Washington belongs to them. These are dollars that could have been spent by the people who earned them to care for their own families.

The American taxpayers have had enough. They are frustrated and disgusted. And I join them in their frustration and disgust. Congress has not done a very good job of oversight. It is time for Congress to empower the American people so that government is more accountable to them. That is why I am introducing new legislation--the Website for American Taxpayers to Check and Help Deter Out-of-control Government Spending--or the WATCHDOG Act.

This bill will give our constituents the tools they need to become citizen watchdogs. Americans will be able to see for themselves how their tax dollars are being spent. This bill will greatly improve transparency and help eliminate wasteful, fraudulent, duplicative, and unnecessary spending. It will give the American people the tools to monitor how Congress uses the earmarks process and how the bureaucrats, who spend billions of dollars a year in unsupervised grants, spend their tax dollars.

Americans are aggravated because too often when they learn about wasteful spending it is too late for them to do anything about it. They learn about spending by reading their morning papers after the legislation has been signed into law or the grant money has been awarded. Sometimes that is how members of Congress learn about them as well. It's time to remove the cloak of secrecy that surrounds the earmarking and grantmaking processes. We need to shine a very bright light on how spending decisions are made.

In this case, that bright light will be a publicly searchable online database that provides information on every organization receiving Federal funds. The Office of Management and Budget would be required to make all Federal grant and loan recipient data available to the public.

The data must include information on Federal grant awards, including an itemized breakdown by agency and program. The database must also list all subgrantees of an organization that receives Federal funds. This bill also reforms and streamlines the grant process by requiring organizations that apply for Federal funding to use a single source application number, which they would use for requesting funding from any Federal agency.

Those projects that are using Federal funds efficiently and with positive results will become obvious, and those programs that are duplicative, fail to show results, squander their funding, or act fraudulently will also become obvious.

Here in Washington we have done a dismal job when it comes to cutting out unnecessary spending. By shining a light on this process, the American public will have a chance to help us eliminate billions of dollars in wasteful

Federal funding. We owe it to the taxpayers and to future generations to clean up our act. This legislation gives taxpayers an important tool to hold Congress' feet to the fire.