Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I and my two colleagues be able to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. President, I would like to start by talking about the bill in general.

Yes.

Maybe 40 minutes, somewhere in there.

Mr. President, there is a lot of talk about this bill. I wish to make some general comments about it. First, following the comments of my colleague from Illinois, he said there are not $\1/2\ trillion in Medicare cuts. According to the Congressional Budget Office, there are $464 billion to $465 billion in Medicare cuts. So maybe not quite $\1/2\ trillion, but we are certainly getting close.

There are, however, $\1/2\ trillion in new taxes in this bill, 84 percent of which will be paid by those making less than $200,000 a year, a direct violation of the campaign pledge made by President Barack Obama, then-Candidate Obama.

This bill will result in increased premiums and health care costs for millions of Americans. This is a massive government takeover of our health care system. As a matter of fact, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis, in this 2,074 page bill--there are almost 1,700, 1,697 to be exact--references to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, giving her the authority to create, determine, or define things relating to health care policy in this bill. Basically, we are placing a bureaucrat in charge of health care policy instead of the patient and the doctor making the choices in health care.

I believe we cannot just be against this bill. What I do believe in is a step-by-step approach, an incremental approach, some good ideas on which we should be able to come together.

I think both sides agree we should eliminate preexisting conditions. Somebody who played by the rules, had insurance, happened to get a disease, they should not be penalized, charged outrageous prices, or have their insurance dropped. I think we can all agree on that.

We should be able to agree that if you can buy auto insurance across State lines, you should be able to buy health insurance in the State where it is the cheapest. Individuals should be able to find a State that has a policy that fits them and their family and be able to buy it there. If you can save money and you happen to be uninsured, especially today, it seems to make sense. Let's have that as one of our incremental steps.

I also believe this bill covers some of it, but I believe we need to incentivize people to engage in healthier behaviors. Seventy-five percent of all health care costs are caused by people's behaviors. Let me repeat that. Three-quarters of all health care costs are driven by people's poor choices in their behavior.

For instance, smoking. On average, it is around $1,400 a year to insure a smoker versus a nonsmoker. For somebody who is obese versus somebody with the proper body weight, it is about the same, $1,400 a year. For somebody who does not control their cholesterol versus somebody on regulating medication, it is several hundred dollars a year. For somebody who does not control their blood pressure versus somebody who does--let's give incentives through lower premiums to encourage people to engage in healthier behaviors. That will save money for the entire health care system and our Country will have healthier people with better quality lives.

Currently, big businesses, because of their number of employees, are allowed to take advantage of purchasing power. We ought to allow individuals and small businesses to join together in

groups to take advantage of that purchasing power. They are called small business health plans.

I believe my colleagues are going to talk about an idea they have, something I talked about for years, the idea of medical liability reform. There are several models out there. They are going to talk about a loser pays model, which other countries have engaged in and they do not have nearly the frivolous lawsuits nor the defensive medicine we practice in this country.

How many doctors order unnecessary tests in the United States because of fear of frivolous lawsuits? Talk to any doctor, and they will tell you every one of them orders unnecessary tests simply to protect themselves against the possibility that a jury may say: Gee, why didn't you order this test even though it was not indicated at the time?

That accounts for a large amount of medical costs. As a matter of fact, the Congressional Budget Office said $100 billion between the private and public sector would be saved with a good medical liability reform bill.

I believe we need a patient-centered health care system, not an insurance company-centered health care system, not what this bill does, a government-centered health care system, where bureaucrats are in control of your health care. We need a patient-centered system.

Before us we have the Mikulski amendment. This is more of government- centered health care. There is a report out based on prevention that indicates that mammograms should not be paid for, basically, for women under 50 years of age, from 40 to 50 years of age, and women in the Medicare population age, the report indicates that they do not need annual mammograms. This was based mainly on cost. If you look at it from a cost standpoint, that is probably correct.

But think about it. If you are a woman and you get cancer and you could have had a mammogram diagnose it a lot earlier, you sure would rather have had that mammogram rather than have that mammogram denied.

The Senator from Maryland has proposed an amendment to try to fix the problem. The problem is, instead of one government entity determining whether somebody is going to get coverage, the amendment turns it over to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Another government bureaucrat will determine whether something such as a mammogram will be paid for. According to the Associated Press, her amendment does not even mention mammograms.

Senator Murkowski and Senator Coburn have come up with an alternative that actually puts the decision of whether to cover preventive services in the hands of experts in the field. Whether it be a mammogram for breast cancer, or an MRI, which most people think is going to be better than a mammogram for diagnosing breast cancer, or whether it is a test for prostate cancer for men. Those kinds of things should be determined by experts in the field, not by government bureaucrats.

The various colleges--the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, for instance, has come out with certain recommendations, along with the American College of Surgeons. Those are the experts with peer-reviewed science. Those are the individuals who should determine what the recommendations are as to whether we pay for preventive services, not government bureaucrats.

Unfortunately, the Mikulski amendment just gives that determination to a government bureaucrat. That is why we should reject the Mikulski amendment, and adopt the amendment offered by the Senator from Alaska, the Murkowski amendment puts the decision making in the hands of the of the experts, where that decision should be made.

Let me close with this point. We have seen a lot of comparisons where are people saying that other countries have a better health care system than the United States. Let me give you the example of cancer survival rates.

This chart compares the average cancer survival rates in the European Union and the United States, it makes the point as to whether a government bureaucrat is making a health decision or the doctor and the patient are making the health treatment decision.

For kidney cancer, the European Union has a 56 percent 5 year survival rate; the United States, 63 percent survival rate after 5 years. On colorectal cancer, about the same difference between the United States and the European Union. Look at breast cancer, 79 percent after 5 years in the European Union; 90 percent in the United States. The most dramatic difference is on prostate cancer, 78 percent survival after 5 years in the European Union; 99 percent survival rate in the United States.

These are dramatic differences. Where would you rather get your health care if you had one of these cancers? The United States or Europe?

Canada, has even worse results than this. As a matter of fact, Belinda Stronach, a member of the Canadian Parliament, led the charge against a private system side by side with the government-run system in Canada. She did not want the private system.

Tragically, a couple years later, she developed breast cancer. Did she stay in Canada to get treatment, where there is a government-run health care system? No. Where did she go? She came to the United States. She was actually treated at UCLA. Why, because we have a superior system of quality in the United States.

We have a problem with cost. Some of the incremental steps I talked about will address costs.

I wish to turn it over now to my colleagues who are going to talk about medical liability reform. Let's look out for the patient instead of the trial lawyers in the United States. Their idea on a loser pays system, I think, has a lot of merit, and it is something this body should consider very seriously.

I yield the floor to the Senator from Georgia, my good friend and colleague.

Mr. President, these pieces of legislation were put on our desks to show the American people what we are dealing with. We have only just started going through these bills. Already we have found major problems with the legislation.

What we are going to talk about over the next few minutes is the premium increases for the American people. If you have insurance now, your premiums are going to go up because of this legislation we have before us. Probably in other ways we don't even know about yet, we will discover in the future, but we at least know some ways that are going to cause the premiums to go up.

Let me first talk generally about the bill and what some of the problems are and just briefly on some alternative ideas Republicans have come up with in more of a step-by-step type approach.

We know this bill cuts Medicare by $465 billion, including $118 billion in Medicare Advantage cuts. That means millions of seniors who are on Medicare Advantage today will lose the plan they have. Medicare Advantage plans in my State are incredibly popular among senior citizens. I know they are across the country. We know taxes are going to go up by almost $500 billion. We know premiums are going to go up for millions of Americans.

This bill was supposed to bend the cost curve. Because it is actually deficit neutral, maybe it helps the deficit a little bit because of the smoke and mirrors they play with it. They say that bends the cost curve, but when we look at the American people and the actual cost they will be paying for health care, their cost curve continues to go up and up and up into the future.

This bill will also lead to rationing. We saw this week a Federal board that talked about mammograms, and it caused an outrage in women across America. That is the sort of thing that is going to happen because of this legislation. Federal bureaucrats are going to be in charge of your health care, not your doctor and you. We need to have legislation that focuses on that doctor-patient relationship that should be so sacred in our health care system today.

Republicans have come up with the idea of medical liability reform to start driving down the cost of all of this defensive medicine that is practiced. We all know doctors order all kinds of unnecessary tests to prevent themselves from being sued in all these frivolous lawsuits.

Both sides agree, let's eliminate the preexisting conditions. That is kind of a given. That is something on which we all agree. That is part of the step-by-step approach this side of the aisle would certainly be willing to do.

I also believe we need to encourage healthier behavior in America because 75 percent of all health care costs are because of people's behavioral choices--smoking, people who are overweight. We know obesity contributes to every kind of cancer, to heart disease, diabetes. It is epidemic in this country. Look at our young people. If we don't turn around people's behavior, get them to exercise more, eat right, quit smoking, I don't care what health care reform you pass, we are not going to do anything about driving down the cost. And the high cost of health care is the No. 1 problem with our system.

We believe we should have small business health plans where small businesses can join together to buy health insurance, take advantage of purchasing power that larger businesses

have. We believe individuals should be able to buy across State lines the way you do with car insurance. If your State is too high on insurance, buy it in another State where it is cheaper, where maybe they don't have as many mandates. Doesn't that make sense?

We also believe we should have transparency on cost and quality. When you walk into your doctor's office, you should be able to get a written estimate of what it is going to cost. You should be able to shop that estimate so that we have more consumers making more intelligent choices on health care. When was the last time you went into your doctor's office and got a written estimate or knew how much something was going to cost? I practiced veterinary medicine for many years. When you walk into my practice, you get a written estimate. We have you sign that written estimate because we have to give that. That is part of our general practice. We need to bring that into human medicine, whether it is hospitals or doctors' practices. We need to have transparency for cost and quality.

How does this bill drive up premiums for Americans?

First, there are nine new taxes put in by the Democratic majority: a 40-percent insurance plan tax for what are called Cadillac plans; another tax on insurance companies; an employer tax; a drug tax; a lab tax; a medical device tax; a failure to buy insurance tax; a cosmetic surgery tax, brand new in this bill; and also an increased employee Medicare tax, a brandnew tax structure on Medicare taxes. Who pays for these kinds of taxes? It isn't just insurance. On the failure to buy insurance, 71 percent of that tax is going to be paid for by people who make less than $120,000 a year.

Almost every one of the taxes I just put up of those nine new taxes-- the vast majority of them are paid by people who President Obama, when he was campaigning, said would not pay one dime more in new taxes. He repeated that promise time after time. He said: No new fees, no new taxes, capital gains. He went through the whole litany of types of taxes that would not be raised. Yet in this plan approximately 80 percent of all of the new taxes are paid by people making less than $250,000 a year.

Another way this massive piece of legislation raises premiums is this thing known as cost-shifting. The doctor from Wyoming practiced medicine. He was talking about the Mayo Clinic and why the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, and other places and other doctors don't want to take Medicaid and Medicare patients anymore. Why? Because the government pays 20 to 30 percent less than private health insurance in reimbursement to doctors; isn't that correct?

How many more people are going to go on the Medicaid rolls?

Because you were in the practice of medicine, I ask the Senator from Wyoming, I have heard numbers as high as 15 million new people on Medicaid, plus we have a new public option, so there will be more people on another government plan. What will happen as far as cost shifting to those of us who have private insurance? For those tens of millions of Americans who have private health insurance, what will happen to their cost of insurance when more people are on government plans?

If the Senator from South Dakota would yield, I wish to get your comments--maybe from both of my colleagues--on a couple of quotes from the Congressional Budget Office as well as the Joint Committee on Taxation dealing with these premium increases and who is actually going to bear the taxes. Because a lot of people think that: Well, let's tax the insurance companies. Let's tax the medical device companies. Let's tax somebody else. Well, this is what the Congressional Budget Office says. Let me read a couple quotes. One quote is:

Although the surcharges would be imposed on the firms,

workers in those firms would ultimately bear the burden of

those fees, just as they would with pay-or-play requirements.

. . . Many of those workers are more likely to have earnings

at or near the minimum wage.

So it is the low-income people who are going to end up paying when you actually put some of these taxes that we have talked about in.

Here is another quote from the Congressional Budget Office. Let's remind folks, the Congressional Budget Office is nonpartisan. It is not Republican, not Democratic. They are kind of the objective scorekeeper around here. They say, these taxes ``would increase costs for the affected firms, which would be passed on to purchasers and would ultimately raise insurance premiums by a corresponding amount.''

The last economic quote is this. This is by the Joint Tax Committee:

Generally, we expect the insurer to pass along the cost of

the excise tax to consumers by increasing the price of health

coverage.

I say to the Senator, this is what you are talking about on that other chart you have up. I wish to hear your comments on that.

Maybe we could have the Senator from Wyoming comment. One of the big things Republicans have been talking about--instead of driving premiums up, which this bill does--is driving premiums down. Maybe the Senator can discuss medical liability reform, which the Congressional Budget Office, which is a very conservative estimate, has said would save about $100 billion in medical costs in this country.

As a practicing physician, maybe the Senator could talk about the unnecessary tests that are ordered, the huge increases in medical liability insurance costs that physicians face today.

Mr. President, one of the hallmarks of the Democrats' health care bill is that it spends a tremendous amount of money--more than $1 trillion. When the true 10 year costs are reflected, it is actually well over $2 trillion. That is a hefty price tag, and most Americans want to know who is going to pay for this.

Contrary to what Democrats want you to believe, this bill will be paid for by all Americans, including low- and middle-income families and small business owners. So for the next week, I want taxpayers as they go about their daily activities to take a moment to understand why they will be paying a new tax for each day of their hardworking week.

Monday is not usually a favored day for most folks during the week-- and if this health care reform passes, it will be absolutely a miserable day for families making less than $200,000 a year. That is because 91 percent of you will start the week off by paying a $200 billion tax on health insurance.

I have talked about this before at length, this so-called tax on ``Cadillac'' plans. It is actually a 40-percent tax on high-cost premium ``Cadillac'' plans. But the people who are going to pay for these plans and for this tax are more likely driving minivans, used cars, and cars that are paid off. That is because it disproportionately impacts middle-income families.

That is new tax No. 1. But there are more.

The 40-percent insurance plan tax is what I just talked about. But all told, there are seven new taxes in this health care bill, and maybe more to come. These new taxes, as shown on this chart, fall on some people directly and on others indirectly. The nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee testified that these new taxes--however they are named--will act as excise taxes and will be passed on to consumers to some extent.

So, on Tuesday, as your kids are getting ready to get off for school, do not forget that you will be paying higher taxes on insurance premiums because of a new tax on insurance companies. It is the insurance tax. I want to quote a letter the Joint Tax Committee wrote. Remember, this is the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee. They wrote to me in response to my concern over this debilitating tax. I quote:

An insurer offering a family health plan that exceeds the

excise tax threshold and is subject to the excise tax faces

an increase in the cost of offering that health coverage.

Generally, we expect the insurer to pass along the cost of

the excise tax to consumers by increasing the price of health

coverage.

So Tuesday is not a great day either in this new week of taxes.

On Wednesday, our small businesses--the engine of our economy--will be taxed if they do not offer health insurance. That is the employer tax, tax No. 3. The employer tax will hit small businesses and make it more expensive to hire workers. I do not think that is a good idea when the Nation is facing an over 10-percent unemployment rate. Those who are hired will see their wages reduced because of the required employer ``responsibility'' payments. That is what they are called.

The Congressional Budget Office--which again is a nonpartisan entity--has explicitly stated:

Although the surcharges would be imposed on the firms,

workers in those firms would ultimately bear the burden of

those fees. . . .

The tax credit to small businesses does little to help because it only helps firms with 25 employees or less, and it is temporary. Also, this tax credit drops off so suddenly for firms with more than 10 employees that some firms will be penalized--actually penalized--for adding jobs or raising workers' pay--clearly, a perverse incentive.

So Wednesday is clearly not a good day for small businesses or their employees, especially those making minimum wage. So I hope you didn't have to call in sick on Thursday, because if you go to a doctor and get a prescription, there is a new tax on the pharmaceutical companies that you will pay. This is tax No. 4, the drug tax. Don't think about using your health savings account or flexible spending account for the over- the-counter medication you need as well. Under the House plan, nonprescription medications can no longer be purchased with moneys from these accounts, and under the Senate plan, there is a $2,500 cap for pretax dollars that can be used in these accounts. The weekend is so near on Friday; but wait, if you need some lab work done, you will have to pay a new tax on clinical laboratories. This is the lab tax.

You think your work is over on Saturday, but you will still be paying more taxes under this bill. If you need surgery, there is a new tax on medical devices, such as pacemakers, prosthetics, and hearing aids. This is No. 6. This raises the cost of health care. This is passed on to the consumers. All these taxes have one thing in common: They do raise the cost of health care for middle-income Americans.

My Democratic colleagues may claim they are raising taxes on health care companies, not people, and people will be better off once all this tax money is collected in Washington and then used as subsidies. The truth is, the people are paying and many are in the middle class who Democrats claim would be spared. It is true some people may, on a net basis, get more subsidy than they pay in higher taxes, but over 46 million middle-income families will pay more than they receive. In other words, their health care costs in the net are going to go up. They lose under this health care bill and these are middle-income Americans.

According to the analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, from which I wish to quote now, these taxes:

Would increase costs for the affected firms, which would be

passed on to purchasers and would ultimately raise insurance

premiums by a corresponding amount.

So now it is Sunday, historically a day of rest but not for these new taxes. There is one more tax that again falls squarely on lower and middle-income families, a penalty excise tax for failure to obtain insurance. That is tax No. 7. We are faced with a bill where, according to the Congressional Budget Office, at least seventy-one percent of the individual mandate penalties would fall on the backs of American families making less than $120,000 a year. Remember what the President said: No new taxes on anybody making $250,000 a year or less. Actually, probably over 90 percent of this tax will be paid by those on whom the President said not one dime in new taxes will be raised. Yet under this bill that is coming before the Senate, their taxes are raised and they are raised significantly.

Well, we have run out of days of the week, but the Democrats are not finished yet. If you have been using pretax dollars in a flexible spending account, which most Federal employees have and a lot of other people who are employed by other companies have as well, and you pay for services not covered by your plan, such as speech therapy for a child with autism, you are out of luck under this bill. As I said earlier, the Federal spending accounts are capped at $2,500 in this bill, so your income tax will rise as well as your medical expenses. If you have been dealing with extraordinarily high medical expenses and have been counting on qualified medical expenses tax deductions to pay for care or tuition for a special needs school, again, you are out of luck. The itemized deduction bar will be raised from 7.5 percent to 10 percent of your income in this bill. In other words, this bill hurts those who are being hit hardest by medical catastrophes.

In committee, my colleagues and I on the Republican side tried to inject some limits to this tax mania. We offered an amendment to carve out lower and middle-income families from paying taxes. I offered an amendment to protect the middle class, specifically, from the onerous penalty excise tax for those who fail to obtain insurance. Unfortunately, on party-line votes, the Democrats voted down those amendments.

I offered an amendment to eliminate the growing threat that the 40- percent insurance tax posed to every American with insurance, but, once again, the majority voted it down. We offered amendments to strike some of these specific, heavy-handed new taxes, but, once again, the majority, on party lines, voted them down. We tried to apply limitations so these taxes would not go into effect if they caused consumer costs to rise. The majority, again, voted them down. We tried to prevent these new taxes from hurting veterans, but as Democrats first accepted it, they then passed a second amendment to eliminate the protections. We tried to ensure that vulnerable Americans would not be hit with a tax increase on catastrophic medical costs. Again, the Democrat majority in committee voted it down. After losing every attempt to remove these new, onerous taxes, we tried to preserve the ability of Americans to continue to use their flexible spending accounts. Once again, that was voted down by the majority.

There are at least seven brand new taxes in this bill--one, two, three, four, five, six, seven new taxes--with more taxes being discussed. Before the final bill is completed, I am sure there will be more taxes in this bill. The House bill has a surcharge on small businesses. They are also talking about adding a value-added tax, which would be a regressive national sales tax on everyone, and a new windfall profits tax on insurance companies. There is even talk of a tax on soda pop. All these taxes do is cost Americans more money without giving them much in return. Even if the spending in this bill was worthwhile, these sweeping and unreasonable taxes would more than outweigh the benefits.

It is very clear America's lower and middle classes will bear the brunt of these new taxes. On top of that, they will not be allowed to keep the insurance plans they have. Instead, they will be forced into a new experimental system that will succeed only in exploding our deficit spending for generations to come.

So where is the break for hard-working families, we have to ask. Under this plan, they pay for government-run insurance to cover more Americans. They lose their own insurance--many of them--along the way, and they watch as deficits continue to eclipse their children's futures. That is not even close to the American way.

On behalf of millions of American workers, families, and small businesses that sent us to Washington to be their voice, I cannot stand by and watch the majority destroy our chance for meaningful health care reform that does not bankrupt our Nation. I am going to do everything in my power to stop these new taxes from becoming reality. I am confident, with the American people behind us, we can stop these new taxes. We can start over, in a bipartisan way, and go step by step and come up with health insurance reform that controls costs, preserves and even improves quality, and doesn't end up with a government-run health care system that cuts over $500 billion in Medicare and raises $500 billion in new taxes.

I urge our colleagues to work together--not as Republicans and Democrats but as Americans--so we can preserve the quality of health care we have enjoyed in this country for so long but do it in a way that is more affordable and provides more access to more Americans.

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

Mr. President, my amendment is very simple. It would add $172 million to the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. This program provides payment to States that incur correctional officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens for at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions. This amendment is offset by simply an across-the-board decrease in spending, so it is budget neutral.

I believe this is an important amendment. It is especially important if you are in one of the Southwestern States or border States. Local law enforcement in those states incur a lot of expenses; those associated with illegal immigrants, especially those who are criminals. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and match what the House of Representatives did when they passed this amendment by a vote of 405 to 1. Let's go along with the House of Representatives and make sure our local law enforcement has the resources they need to fight those who are here illegally and committing serious crimes.

To clear up a couple of facts, first of all, not every State has the same problem with illegal immigrants that other States do.

I move to waive the applicable sections of the Budget Act with respect to my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Ensign pertaining to the introduction of S. 2724 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions''.)

Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bill that has been introduced today by myself, along with Senators Reid, Feinstein, and Boxer, that will be the next chapter in our continuing support of one of the most pristine and magnificent areas in the United States.

Since it was formed 2 million years ago, the breathtaking beauty of Lake Tahoe has awed all who have visited its crystal-clear waters and inspiring views. Mark Twain once said about the landmark, ``I thought it must surely be the fairest picture the whole world affords.'' From the Washoe tribe that originally inhabited its shores to John C. Fremont who first saw Lake Tahoe 165 years ago, this alpine lake is a part of our history and a part of our future.

Next year, the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, originally enacted in 2000, will expire. Over the course of a decade, $300,000,000 was invested in environmental projects for water clarity, erosion control, and fire suppression. I am proud to have led the effort to amend the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act in 2003 in order to guarantee funding for the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act from land auctions across southern Nevada. Great work has gone into protecting this national legacy, but we are not done.

The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2009 is our continued commitment to protecting this Nevada treasure for future generations. This effort, a collaboration among Senators Feinstein, Reid, Boxer, and me, authorizes $415 million for 8 years and provides for fuels reduction, Environmental Improvement Program projects, storm water management, and watershed restoration. It devotes significant funding--for the first time ever--to prevent the introduction of quagga and zebra mussels into the lake, one of the greatest threats facing Tahoe today. There is also funding for Lahontan Cutthroat Trout recovery and public outreach and education.

Unfortunately, there are many threats facing Lake Tahoe. This legislation addresses each of those threats in a manner that is fiscally responsible with the most effective and efficient use of Federal funds. Hazardous fuels reduction is one of the most important investments we can make. If you have ever been to Lake Tahoe, you know that one catastrophic fire could wipe out the entire basin. Just 2 years ago, we watched in horror as the Angora fire spread and consumed land, trees, homes, and businesses. It spewed sediment and ash into the lake and turned our worst fears into reality. That is why we must be aggressive with our fuels reduction efforts. This bill also provides grants to Fire Protection Districts in the Lake Tahoe Basin to work in partnership with homeowners on defensible space.

The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act is not just a Federal effort. Nevada, California, and private entities are also partners in the Environmental Improvement Program. In Nevada, where the legislature recently committed 100 million to the Environmental Improvement Program, Lake Tahoe is beloved and treasured. I had the privilege of spending several years of my childhood at the lake. My wife Darlene and I have made it a point to instill the same love for Lake Tahoe in our children. We spend our family's summer vacations there--biking, boating, waterskiing, and rock climbing. To this day, my favorite spot is the Tahoe Rim Trail looking down on Sandy Harbor, where you can see deep into the lake. You can see huge boulders. The clarity is so amazing, it is literally one of the most spectacular views in all the world. There really is no place in the world like Lake Tahoe.

Let us make sure this inheritance is cared for and passed on to future generations.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bill that has been introduced today by myself, along with Senators Reid, Feinstein, and Boxer, that will be the next chapter in our continuing support of one of the most pristine and magnificent areas in the United States.

Since it was formed 2 million years ago, the breathtaking beauty of Lake Tahoe has awed all who have visited its crystal-clear waters and inspiring views. Mark Twain once said about the landmark, ``I thought it must surely be the fairest picture the whole world affords.'' From the Washoe tribe that originally inhabited its shores to John C. Fremont who first saw Lake Tahoe 165 years ago, this alpine lake is a part of our history and a part of our future.

Next year, the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, originally enacted in 2000, will expire. Over the course of a decade, $300,000,000 was invested in environmental projects for water clarity, erosion control, and fire suppression. I am proud to have led the effort to amend the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act in 2003 in order to guarantee funding for the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act from land auctions across southern Nevada. Great work has gone into protecting this national legacy, but we are not done.

The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2009 is our continued commitment to protecting this Nevada treasure for future generations. This effort, a collaboration among Senators Feinstein, Reid, Boxer, and me, authorizes $415 million for 8 years and provides for fuels reduction, Environmental Improvement Program projects, storm water management, and watershed restoration. It devotes significant funding--for the first time ever--to prevent the introduction of quagga and zebra mussels into the lake, one of the greatest threats facing Tahoe today. There is also funding for Lahontan Cutthroat Trout recovery and public outreach and education.

Unfortunately, there are many threats facing Lake Tahoe. This legislation addresses each of those threats in a manner that is fiscally responsible with the most effective and efficient use of Federal funds. Hazardous fuels reduction is one of the most important investments we can make. If you have ever been to Lake Tahoe, you know that one catastrophic fire could wipe out the entire basin. Just 2 years ago, we watched in horror as the Angora fire spread and consumed land, trees, homes, and businesses. It spewed sediment and ash into the lake and turned our worst fears into reality. That is why we must be aggressive with our fuels reduction efforts. This bill also provides grants to Fire Protection Districts in the Lake Tahoe Basin to work in partnership with homeowners on defensible space.

The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act is not just a Federal effort. Nevada, California, and private entities are also partners in the Environmental Improvement Program. In Nevada, where the legislature recently committed 100 million to the Environmental Improvement Program, Lake Tahoe is beloved and treasured. I had the privilege of spending several years of my childhood at the lake. My wife Darlene and I have made it a point to instill the same love for Lake Tahoe in our children. We spend our family's summer vacations there--biking, boating, waterskiing, and rock climbing. To this day, my favorite spot is the Tahoe Rim Trail looking down on Sandy Harbor, where you can see deep into the lake. You can see huge boulders. The clarity is so amazing, it is literally one of the most spectacular views in all the world. There really is no place in the world like Lake Tahoe.

Let us make sure this inheritance is cared for and passed on to future generations.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I rise today to talk about the growing number of so-called policy czars in the current administration and the impact it is having on the Senate's oversight function over the executive branch.

I will begin by saying that I am not here to question the President's constitutional or statutory authority to name advisers. I think we all can agree that the President is entitled to surround himself with experts to help coordinate policy and to provide advice. However, as many of my colleagues are aware, there are some 18 new policy advisers, or czars, in the White House whose job descriptions may be a bit blurred.

While some media reports cite more than 18, I think we can reasonably say that there are at least 18 new positions that have not been established by statute, are not confirmed by the Senate, and have not existed before.

Early in his administration, President Obama sent a memorandum to the heads of the executive departments and agencies stating that ``a democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.''

Despite this charge, the President has taken it upon himself to nominate a number of advisers who appear to wield a great amount of power and who are seemingly without public accountability.

I am not the only one who is concerned with this lack of accountability. We have seen members of the President's own party express concerns over this unusually high number of policy advisers in the White House.

In February of this year, Senator Robert Byrd, the constitutional conscience of the Senate, wrote to the White House and said:

The rapid and easy accumulation of power by the White House

staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and

balances.

Like the senior Member of the Senate, I too am concerned that the Obama administration is creating what can be perceived as a shadow Cabinet by creating policy positions that do not follow the same advice and consent of the Senate as other relevant policy positions in the White House.

In September, Senator Feingold, the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to the White House requesting information on the roles and responsibilities of the czars in question. His letter was specifically focused to ensure that these advisers are not in violation of the appointments clause of the Constitution.

Article II, section 2 of the Constitution says the President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. . . .''

Unfortunately, because we know so little about the roles and responsibilities about the czars in question, it is simply not possible to determine whether the czars are actually officers and, therefore, constitutional.

In response to Senator Feingold's letter to the administration last month, the White House claimed that the one and only role of the 18 positions in question is to advise the President. Yet when we look at the press releases and Executive orders announcing these policy advisers, they seem to have far more authority than strictly advising the President.

Take, for example, Executive Order No. 13507 on April 8, 2009, announcing the establishment of the White House Office of Health Reform. The order states the office, run by a director, will ``develop and implement strategic initiatives'' and ``work with Congress.''

Is it not the role of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement strategic initiatives? In the White House press release announcing key members of his energy and environmental team, President Obama announced that Carol Browner, the new Assistant for Energy and Climate Change, would be ``indispensable in implementing an ambitious and complex energy policy.''

Again, the administration is leaning on its newly created czar positions to implement policy. This question of policy implementation was brought up during a hearing last week in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee which I attended. Senator Collins, who also wrote the White House with others in September questioning the increasing number of czars in the administration asked the panel of constitutional law experts about the issue of implementing policy.

Dr. James Pfiffner, a university professor at George Mason's School of Public Policy, testified that ``with respect to the implementation of health policy, I think that's very troubling.''

Lee Casey, a former attorney-adviser in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, testified that ``by law,'' these czars ``cannot implement.'' Casey did suggest, however, that Congress could ask what the administration means by ``implement.''

I believe that is the true question here. What exactly are these czars doing? Are they simply advising the President, or are they actually implementing policy?

A few of my colleagues have come to the Senate floor to offer amendments prohibiting funds to these czars if they are directing actions to the Cabinet officials who have been confirmed by the Senate. Other amendments would ensure that the czars will respond to reasonable requests to testify before Congress, therefore, allowing our proper oversight in this body. Unfortunately, these amendments were defeated on procedural grounds.

I even offered an amendment during the Finance Committee's health reform markup that will require the czar handling health care issues be subject to Senate confirmation. My amendment was defeated on a party- line vote.

What is the answer? How can Congress and the American public feel confident the people who are appointed by the executive branch are appropriately carrying out the duties they are supposed to?

More importantly, how can we be sure the balance of power does not get out of balance? I think we all have the right to know exactly what these policy czars are doing, to whom they are reporting, and who is responsible and accountable if something goes wrong.

If the President can answer these questions for us, I think we will all feel better about this process.

Health Care Reform

Madam President, I wish to talk briefly about the health care reform bill that is going to be coming before this body in just a couple of short weeks.

There are certain facts that we know. We have not seen the bill because it has just been written and given to the Congressional Budget Office for the official scoring to be done. What we do know about the bill, though, is that there is over a $400 billion cut in Medicare. We know that. We know that people who currently have health care, their premiums will go up. That is according to the Congressional Budget Office. We know for many Americans--and mostly this will fall on people making less than $250,000 a year--their taxes will go up. We know also there will be government bureaucrats making decisions on health care. We also know people who currently have policies they like, especially those who have Medicare Advantage, millions will lose their current policy because over $120 billion is being taken out of the Medicare Advantage Program.

We need to ask ourselves a couple of very fundamental questions. Does anyone really believe we can have a trillion-dollar health care bill and not add one dime to our deficit, as the President promised? Does anybody seriously believe that? How does adding a government-run plan, this so-called public option, which mirrors the Medicare Program, actually fix the health care problem when Medicare itself is going bankrupt?

Everyone agrees Medicare is going bankrupt. Yet we want to add a new government entitlement program into our health care system? That is going to fix the problem?

Do the American people really trust Washington, politicians, and bureaucrats to run their health care system? I believe we need to design a patient-centered health care system instead of a government system or an insurance company system. Let's design a health care system which makes health care more affordable and more accessible by encouraging people to make healthier choices, such as quitting smoking, eating better, and exercising more. That will improve people's quality of life, but it will also lower the cost of health care for all Americans.

Let's enact real medical liability reform to stop the practice of defensive medicine which, once again, will lower the cost of health care in the United States. It will save the government over $50 billion, and it will save the private sector a similar amount, and these are both conservative estimates.

Lastly, instead of taking $400 billion out of Medicare to fund a new entitlement program, let's work on getting the fraud out of Medicare and let's use that savings to preserve that system that has been so incredibly important for seniors for the last several decades.

I believe we need to start over. We do need to take a bipartisan approach to health care reform. We need to actually forget about whether we are Republicans or Democrats and let's just be Americans. Let's sit down together ahead of time, not based on ideology but based on what systems can work in America for the American people to achieve better quality, lower costs in our health care system today that puts the patient at the center of our health care system instead of a government bureaucrat or an insurance company.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise today to discuss why meaningful medical liability reform must be included in the health care reform package. Americans spend far more on lawsuits than any other country, and more than twice as much as all countries except for one.

According to a recent study conducted by the Tillinghast-Towers Perrin Group, the direct cost of health care lawsuits is $30 billion per year. These costs are multiplied by the indirect costs of lawsuits, especially doctors ordering costly tests out of fear of being sued.

Estimates of wasted money spent on unneeded tests range from over $100 billion each year to nearly $250 billion annually. In a 2006 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, it suggests that as much as 40 percent of medical liability lawsuits are frivolous.

Medical liability insurance premiums are threatening the stability of our Nation's health care system. These rates are forcing many physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers to move out of high liability States, limit the scope of their practices, and some even to close their doors permanently. This crisis is affecting more and more patients. It is threatening access to reliable, quality health care services.

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

If you are a woman and you are pregnant with a high-risk pregnancy, it would seem to me you would want the doctors who specialize in high- risk pregnancies to see you. This only makes sense. However, 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 handle.

Because of the unaffordable medical liability insurance premiums, it is now common for obstetricians to not deliver babies and for other specialists to no longer provide emergency calls or provide certain high-risk procedures.

Ask yourself this question: What if I were in need of an emergency procedure? What if I were the woman who had a high-risk pregnancy and could not find a specialist to provide me with the health care I needed?

The medical liability crisis is threatening patient access to reliable, quality health services all across America. Additionally, costly medical liability premiums have forced some emergency rooms to shut down temporarily in recent years.

In my home State of Nevada, our level 1 trauma center was closed for 10 days in 2002. This closure left every patient within a 10,000- square-mile area unserved by a level 1 trauma center.

Unfortunately, a gentleman by the name of Jim Lawson was one of those in need of a trauma unit at that time. Jim lived in Las Vegas and was just 1 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 the University Medical Center's level 1 trauma center. Unfortunately, it was closed.

Instead, Jim was taken to another emergency room where he was 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 1 trauma center closed that day? Due to the

simple fact that doctors could not afford the medical liability insurance premiums, and there were not enough doctors to provide the care.

Ultimately, the State had to step in and take over the liability to reopen the trauma center. Our State has caps on how much someone can sue for, so medical liability insurance is affordable.

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

Doctor Alamo of Henderson, NV, brought another example of this problem to my attention. Doctor 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 neurologists 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 all the way to California by helicopter to receive the medical care she so desperately needed.

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

To address the growing medical liability crisis in my home State of Nevada, the State enacted legislation that includes a cap on noneconomic damages and a cap on total damages for trauma care. Several other States have enacted similar reforms.

This should not be a Republican or a Democratic issue. Simply put, the current medical liability crisis means patients cannot find access to care when they need it most in many areas.

Without Federal legislation, the exodus of providers in the practice of medicine will continue, and patients will find it increasingly difficult to obtain needed care. As we work on comprehensive health care reform, one of our primary goals must be to enact meaningful medical liability reform to help patients access care.

As you know, President Obama recently addressed the entire Congress on health reform. During his speech he said:

I do not believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but

I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive

medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs.

The President went on to say he asked Secretary Sebelius to move forward on demonstration projects in individual States to test ways to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. Let's face reality. There is no doubt that defensive medicine occurs every day and that the costs to the health care system are staggering.

As I mentioned earlier, tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted every year due to the practice of defensive medicine, largely in an attempt to avoid frivolous, junk lawsuits. Just think of how many uninsured patients we could cover with this money or how much cheaper the premiums would be for those who already have insurance.

We must stop playing games and start doing something real to address important health care issues. Unfortunately, the Finance Committee bill that was voted on last week only includes a meaningless sense of the Senate on medical liability reform. That seems to parrot some of the President's remarks.

Specifically, the language in the bill expresses the Sense of the Senate that States should be encouraged to develop and test alternatives to the current civil litigation system as a way of improving patient safety, reducing medical errors, encouraging the efficient resolution of disputes, increasing the availability of prompt and fair resolution of disputes and on and on and on. It is only a Sense of the Senate.

The provision also expresses the sense of the Senate that Congress should consider establishing a State demonstration program to evaluate alternatives to the current civil litigation system.

Let's be honest with ourselves. The Sense of the Senate is fluff. It ignores the substantial progress many States have already made with medical liability reform. Capping noneconomic damage awards has been highly successful in a number of States, such as Texas, and is something we should consider as part of health care reform.

It is important for the Senate to consider capping punitive damages, limiting attorneys' fees, and providing that if multiple defendants contributed to a mistake, each defendant should pay only for the portion of the mistake for which they are responsible.

So let's do the right thing. Let's enact real medical liability reform rather than a meaningless Sense of the Senate. As part of the health care debate, I will be offering a comprehensive medical liability reform amendment that sets reasonable limits on noneconomic damages while also providing for unlimited economic damages.

My amendment is a responsible reform measure that includes joint liability and collateral source improvements, and limits on attorney fees according to a sliding 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 too often used to further the abuse of the system.

What happens today in our medical liability system is we have professional witnesses. Too often they are not a specialist in the field for which they are called to testify. Yet because juries do not know they are not a true expert, their testimony is allowed to influence liability claims.

My amendment uses a Texas style of caps on noneconomic damages that provides a cap of $250,000 for a judgment against a physician or health care provider. In addition, the patient can be awarded up to $250,000 for a judgment against one health care institution.

Under Texas law, judgments against two or more health care institutions cannot exceed $500,000, with each institution not liable for more than half that. In total, noneconomic damages cannot exceed $750,000.

Medical liability reform works, and it is already turning the tide against frivolous lawsuits and outrageous jury awards in some States. We have seen it in California, in Texas, and in my home State of Nevada, where the number of medical malpractice lawsuits has decreased dramatically.

It has been a crisis driving doctors out of business for too long. It is time to protect patients across the country and to ensure access to quality health care.

To illustrate my point, I would like to tell you about the success of medical liability reform in Texas. Over 16,000 new physicians have come to Texas since reform was enacted. The number of high-risk medical specialists in Texas is growing. Since 2003, Texas has added 650 emergency room doctors, 350 heart doctors, over 200 obstetricians, 160 orthopedic surgeons, and almost 60 neurosurgeons.

These additions are not limited to urban Texas. The ranks of rural obstetricians have grown by almost 30 percent. Twenty-two rural counties have added an obstetrician and 10 counties have added their first OB. The statistics go on and on about the success in Texas.

In addition to improvements in access to health care, charity care has also greatly expanded due to medical liability reform. Today, Texas hospitals are rendering $600 million more in charity care annually than they were just 6 years ago--$600 million more in charity care by hospitals than they were giving before medical liability reform.

Liability savings have allowed hospitals to upgrade medical equipment, expand emergency rooms, expand outpatient services, staff Emergency Rooms 24/7 with high risk specialists, improve salaries for nurses, and launch patient safety programs.

Without reforms and the attendant savings, these healthy developments would not have been possible. Lawsuit reform has been a magnet for attracting doctors and the funding mechanism to improve access to care and enhance patient safety.

Physicians have seen a decrease in their medical liability premiums. Since 2003, physicians in Texas have saved, collectively, almost $600 million in

their liability premiums. Today, most Texas doctors are paying lower liability premiums than they were almost 10 years ago.

All major physician liability carriers in Texas have cut their rates since the passage of the reforms and most of them by double digits.

Texas's reforms prove lawsuit reform can improve access to care, expand the number of doctors and types of care hospitals are able to offer, and help reduce medical costs. According to a conservative estimate by the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, if Congress adopted only a few of the proposed lawsuit reforms, the deficit would decrease by $54 billion over 10 years.

Madam President, $54 billion is how much it would save the government. To put this in perspective, this is twice as much as the Finance Committee plans to raise by taxing medical devices.

During the Finance Committee markup, CBO's Director, Dr. Elmendorf, added that he felt the savings to the private sector would be approximately equal to the $54 billion saved by the government.

Madam President, $54 billion to decrease the deficit, and the savings in the private sector is another $54 billion. Under this conservative estimation, which is substantially less than what third-party estimates have shown, enacting medical liability reform would save at least $100 billion between the government and the private sector over 10 years.

So why would the Democrats leave medical liability reform out? Well, they did put a Sense of the Senate in the Finance Committee bill. What are the savings from the Sense of the Senate to the private sector and the government? A big, fat zero.

I will tell you why the Democrats left out medical liability reform. It is because it would hurt a Democrat special interest group: they are known as trial lawyers.

Howard Dean, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, put it simply:

[T]he reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because

the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial

lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on,

and that is the plain and simple truth. Now, that's the

truth.

I hope as the debate unfolds on the floor that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will change their mind about enacting serious medical liability reform. My medical care access protection amendment is not a battle of right versus left. It is a battle of right versus wrong.

This amendment is the right prescription for patients. We need to secure patient access to quality health care services when they need it the most. I urge my colleagues to adopt this commonsense amendment when it is brought to the floor.

One last comment. We are going to be adding what is called the doctor fix. We are going to be adding the doctor fix unpaid for. It is $250 billion over the next 10 years. I have been talking a lot about the Federal debt and what we are doing to our children. The other side wants to do what we all want to do around here; that is, make sure doctors' fees in Medicare are not cut because they are already paid at a very low rate, but they are doing that without honoring what they talked about known as ``pay-go''.

We heard a lot about that during the campaign: We need to pay for everything. We cannot keep adding to the deficit. They accused this side of the aisle as being fiscally irresponsible. Now they are going to add $250 billion, take it off the table, and say: Well, it does not count. We are just going to add to the deficit $250 billion; that we can fix the doctors' payments, but we are not going to pay for it.

I think this is pretty outrageous. That is why we are going to have amendments to attempt to fix what is happening to the doctors but to do it in a fiscally responsible way so we are not adding to our children's and our grandchildren's tax burden in the future.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mel Martinez came to the United States from Cuba at the age of 15 as part of a humanitarian effort called Operation Peter Pan. We are all familiar with the character of Peter Pan he is careless and does not want to grow up. He is sometimes selfish and often conceited. It is ironic because Mel is the opposite of all of those attributes.

Mel Martinez arrived on our shores with no family and only the hope for a

better life. He had to grow up incredibly fast, and he did so with great determination. He worked hard to learn English, graduate from college and law school, and build a legal career and solid reputation.

And then he decided to selflessly give back to the community and country that had given him so much. He rose to the highest levels of our government as the 12th Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President George W. Bush. He served from 2001 to 2003, an especially trying time in our Nation's history. But his agency's focus on rebuilding Lower Manhattan provided necessary healing for a city and its citizens.

In 2005, Mel was sworn in as the first Cuban American U.S. Senator. It was a privilege to serve with him and to join together on many legislative efforts. Most significant was our work on expanding freedom and democracy for the people of Cuba. Cubans have been stifled for too long by a brutal communist dictator. They deserve a voice and an opportunity for a better life. Nobody knows that better than Mel Martinez, and I look forward to continuing our fight to support pro- democracy efforts.

Most recently, I was pleased to work with Mel on legislation to promote U.S. tourist destinations abroad. Florida and Nevada miss out on vital international tourism dollars because the United States has no entity to promote our amazing tourism opportunities to other countries. I am confident that the Travel Promotion Act, cosponsored by Senator Martinez, will pass the Senate shortly and will represent another accomplishment by my former colleague to improve the lives of his constituents and fuel success for all Americans.

I thank Mel Martinez for his decades of public service in Florida and here in our Nation's Capital. He proved to us all that the hope for a better life combined with determination and the limitless opportunities here in America can make any dream come true.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2648, and I send a modification to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to propose an amendment adding $172 million for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program and offset it with corporate welfare funding currently in the bill.

The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, known as SCAAP, provides Federal payments to States and localities that incur correctional officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens with at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of State or local law and are incarcerated for at least four consecutive days during the reporting period.

This program also reimburses State, county, parish, tribal, or other municipal governments for the costs associated with the prosecution of criminal cases declined by local U.S. Attorney's Offices.

While we have made strides in securing our border, illegal immigration remains a significant problem, and the Federal Government should bear the additional burden placed on States and local governments. While this amendment does not fix our problems with illegal immigration, it does help local communities address costs associated with the incarceration of illegal immigrants who continually and repeatedly violate the laws of our country.

This will bring this program's funding up to the 2009 level of $400 million. This increase will match the level the other Chamber, the House of Representatives, accepted by a nearly unanimous vote of 405 to 1. With increased funding for SCAAP, we can keep more repeat offenders off our streets and reduce some of the catch-and-release practices instituted by many communities that just don't have the resources to keep these criminals where they belong, which is behind bars.

So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to ensure that critical funds reach our State, county, parish, tribal, and municipal governments to help battle the problems associated with illegal immigration and to keep lawbreaking illegal immigrants off our streets.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal relating to this matter.

Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.

Mr. President, what this motion is similar to the motions I have made on previous spending bills. What we are asking the Appropriations

Committee to do is to fund our government at the 2009 level.

In 2009, we saw huge funding increases. Then, with all of the spending programs, the government has seen massive increases on top of the increases in spending we had last year. So what we are saying is, while businesses, families, local governments, and State governments across the country are cutting their budgets, the Federal Government should freeze spending levels to 2009 levels. Let us not go on this massive increase in spending.

We understand the census, which we do just once every 10 years, is not part of the normal budget process, so we allowed for that. We allow for the census to be funded. But everything else should be funded at 2009 levels.

We allow the Appropriations Committee to set the priorities; that is, what funding is to go into which particular program. Some programs are more effective than others, and they may have different priorities. That should be the prerogative of the Appropriations Committee. But what this body should be doing is sending a message to the American people that we care about our children and our grandchildren.

What we are seeing right now is that we are borrowing 43 cents of every dollar we spend. Think about that. Think about a family or a business borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar they spend. That is what we are doing. I think this next chart illustrates very well on whom this burden is going to fall.

The picture of this young lady was taken out in the public. She had a sign around her which said: I am already $38,375 in debt, and I only own a dollhouse.

It is a picture of a cute little girl, and it would really be a cute picture if it wasn't so sad because it is true. Every child in America has a huge debt burden put on them because of the spending.

During the last many years we have heard about the spending programs. The other side of the aisle actually ran on fiscal discipline. They said we spent too much money under the Bush administration. By the way, I agreed with that statement. I think we did spend too much money during the first part of this decade. But the spending levels now, in comparison, are skyrocketing. We are adding trillions and trillions of dollars in debt to future generations.

So my motion, very simply, says: Instead of this large increase in this spending bill, we are going to live at last year's numbers. We are not even going to cut in ways State governments and local governments are doing. They are cutting. We are going to live within last year's funding levels--which were, by the way, increased dramatically. Last year, I think the same appropriations bill got a 15-percent increase. Let's at least live at last year's level instead of living on huge increases this year.

I think this motion is the responsible thing to do for future generations and for the future of our country. We have to think about this debt. What is this debt going to do? We are hearing about the weakening dollar. There are articles every day in financial magazines about what a weak dollar means to America. The higher the debt, the weaker the dollar gets. We are adding trillions of dollars onto the debt. That weak dollar is going to hurt our economy into the future. We have to worry about not only inflation, but hyperinflation. We have to worry about whether jobs are going to continue to go overseas because of a weak dollar.

Every country that has tried to handle their debt by devaluing their currency, which is what seems to be going on now--has never succeeded. The only way to control your debt is to get spending under control. That is what we have to do in this body. That is what we have to do in this country. My motion says: Time out. Time out from all the spending. Let's at least live at last year's spending level. Let's put a freeze on Federal spending so we are not hurting future generations. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, this is a simple motion to recommit the bill to put it at last year's funding level, plus the money for the census. The census is once every 10 years, and it will allow for that funding increase.

But in this era of record deficits and uncontrolled Washington spending, we are living under last year's spending levels with this motion. We need to get serious in this body about getting our spending under control. We have to start with appropriations bills. We know we have to cut spending on entitlements.

Let's start now by living under last year's spending levels, instead of the large increases we are having on appropriations bill after appropriations bill.

My motion allows the Appropriations Committee to determine what levels programs would be at, but we are not going to allow across-the- board increases.

Mr. President, I just want to applaud the senior Senator from Nevada, the leader of the Senate, for this resolution recognizing the 145th anniversary of Nevada's statehood.

Mr. President. I wish to honor the memory of a remarkable human being who inspired those around him with kindness, generosity, and devotion. He was a man who loved his family and understood the value of education.

Lately, it seems that heads of corporations and big businesses have become about as popular as lawyers and politicians. Well, you don't have to look further than the legacy of Frank Fertitta, Jr., to understand that compassion and respect can very much be part of a successful mission statement.

The name Fertitta may be best known in Las Vegas, NV, but the lessons of how this gaming patriarch lived his life should be emulated around the world.

Frank Fertitta, Jr., moved to Las Vegas in 1960 with his lovely wife Victoria. He started as a bellman and slowly worked his way through the ranks--dealer, pit boss, general manager. But what he will be remembered for professionally is his vision and understanding of business and human nature.

In 1976, Frank opened a 5,000-square-foot building called The Casino. Those around him had their doubts about whether this venture would succeed. Instead, Frank became a pioneer of a gaming niche that catered to locals. His little experiment eventually became the Palace Station. Thirty-three years after that first venture, Station Casinos today has 18 casinos and resorts and employs more than 13,000 people. And today, another generation of Fertittas is working to keep the vision of Frank Fertitta, Jr., alive and well.

His success, however, is not what made Frank Fertitta, Jr., so extraordinary. It was his character and integrity that truly made him an example to all. With the utmost respect, he was called Mr. Fertitta by longtime employees and patrons of Station Casinos. That is because he showed respect to all he came into contact with, and they knew it.

I was fortunate to know Mr. Fertitta and call him a friend. He was genuine and unwavering in his support. The kind of person you were blessed to have in your life.

Described as quiet and polite, family and faith were the foundations of his life. Mr. Fertitta showed how a successful, hard-working businessman can also be a dedicated family man. Each week his whole family gathered at his and Victoria's home for Sunday dinner. This was a tradition that all of the Fertittas have cherished over the years. Anyone who knew him knew his family came first.

He was also a consistent and valued friend to many philanthropic organizations in Las Vegas. He and Victoria were involved with the University of Nevada Las Vegas, Bishop Gorman High School, Catholic Charities of Southern Nevada, the Nevada Cancer Institute, Opportunity Village, St. Judes Ranch, and the Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health.

It is one thing to be generous with your resources. It is another thing to raise your children to also be generous with theirs. That was part of Mr. Fertitta's success. He was proud that his children had become such generous contributors to the community. They did so because he set such a strong example.

Las Vegas lost a visionary with the recent passing of Mr. Fertitta. He taught us all how to respect others--regardless of one's status, how to dream big, and how to give back to our communities. There aren't many people like Mr. Fertitta in the world. We should all take a page from his mission statement to ensure that his brand of success lives on.