Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act. As an original cosponsor of the bipartisan bill, I strongly support the Senate's recent unanimous action to add real teeth to the broadcast decency laws. The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act enables the Federal Communications Commission to significantly increase the fines on television and radio broadcasters who violate the FCC decency rules regarding over-the-air public broadcasts. Specifically, this legislation will increase the maximum fine for the broadcast of obscene, indecent, or profane material to $325,000 for each violation, with a cap of $3 million for any single act or failure to act. This is a tenfold increase over the current maximum fine per offense.

The First amendment states, ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.'' However, the Supreme Court has determined many times that not all forms of speech are protected. In fact, the Court has deemed fit to regulate such forms of speech as obscenity, defamation, speech that incites violence, speech that is harmful to children, and speech that is broadcasted on radio and television.

Unfortunately, broadcasters have recently started playing fast and loose with the decency guidelines. Some of the infractions have made the headlines, but many others never do. Either way, the broadcasters have a responsibility to America's viewing public, and particularly to America's parents. Their behavior demands a response. Allowing obscene, indecent, or profane material over our unrestricted airways can make the job of raising children in today' s world even tougher than it already might be. Putting in place a fine that means something significant to broadcasters who violate decency regulations will help parents who are trying to surround their young children with good role models and decent behavior.

My parents provided me with a strong value system that I depend on to this day. As a father of two teenage daughters, I am doing my best to make sure my girls understand the difference between right and wrong as they prepare for life on their own. Parents will always have the primary role of instilling values in children, supported by teachers, church leaders, and friends. Decent television will never take the place of good parenting, but if there is a modest action that we can take here in Washington to keep the airwaves a little cleaner, I believe we should take that action. I am proud to support this effort to do just that.

Mr. President, the House has recently passed this same legislation, and I call on the President to sign the bill into law. American families deserve nothing less.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize my hometown of Murdo, SD, which is celebrating its centennial this year.

Located in Jones County, the town of Murdo was established in 1906 when a lot sale was held to distribute the land that originally belonged to cattle

rancher Murdo Mackenzie. Today, Murdo is a thriving town that I am proud to call home. It is a welcoming community that reflects the values and principles we as Americans hold dear.

It gives me great pleasure to rise with my fellow citizens of Murdo in celebrating our centennial and looking forward to a bright future.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize Lemmon, SD. The town of Lemmon will celebrate the 100th anniversary of its founding this year.

Located in Perkins County, Lemmon was founded when the Milwaukee railroad extended its line toward the West. It officially became a town on May 16, 1906, founded by George Edward Lemmon.

I would like to offer my congratulations to Lemmon on their anniversary and I wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. President, I echo what my colleague from Virginia has said and rise in support of repealing the unfair death tax.

It is fair to say that death should not be a taxable event. There is decisive majority support in the Senate for repealing the death tax. And if you look at what happened in the House of Representatives, 272 votes in favor of repealing the death tax, a bipartisan vote in the House, and a big, bipartisan support vote in the Senate. What is happening is it gets filibustered. It takes 60 votes to end the filibuster. I hope my colleagues will join with the rest of us, those who have chosen to try to block this from consideration, and vote with us to at least allow us to proceed to consideration, to proceed to a vote, to allow the will of the Senate and what I believe is the will of the majority of the people in the country to be worked.

It is an unfair tax because the Donald Trumps and Paris Hiltons of the world, which are the examples most often used by our colleagues on the other side, are not going to pay it. They have a team of lawyers and accountants who are going to make sure that they pay little or no death tax. It is family-owned farms and small businesses that will end up paying the tax.

There are a lot of numbers being put up by both sides in this debate. After spending a little time in Washington, it becomes clear that just about everyone can find a statistic to support their particular point of view. I brought with me some real South Dakota stories that can help us understand who the death tax can hit and how it can hurt or even shut down a family farm or business.

Perhaps the most well-known example of a family-owned and operated business in my State of South Dakota is Wall Drug. I had hoped to have a poster to show it because people across this country, anybody who has traveled down interstate 90 in South Dakota has seen signs for Wall Drug. Although it currently draws thousands of people every day, Ted and Dorothy Hustead never imagined the success of their family-owned and operated business. Wall Drug wasn't always the tourist attraction it is today.

In fact in 1931, Ted and Dorothy Hustead and their son Bill moved to the prairie town of Wall, SD. Ted was a pharmacist and started his own drugstore with $3,000 left behind for him by his father. After a 5-year trial, the Husteads were ready to give up their family-owned business until Dorothy's extraordinary advertising idea.

The Husteads began advertising free ice water on the billboards to draw people in who were traveling across the hot, vast prairie of South Dakota.

The story is told that before they could get back to the store, after putting the signs up on what used to be highway 16 in South Dakota, there were already customers streaming into the store to get some of this free ice water. The first sign sprung up on highway 16 and it turned out to be the key to their success. Today, Wall Drug's advertisements are still along the highways of South Dakota, still advertising free ice water, along with other more modern draws. Their signs can also be seen all over the world, often with the mileage dutifully added. My office is 1,565 miles from Wall Drug.

This didn't happen overnight. In 1951, Ted and Dorothy's son, Bill Hustead, joined the business, working to create the family attraction that Wall Drug is today. The second-generation Husteads expanded the business and increased advertising spending.

In 1981, Bill's oldest son Rick became the first member of the third generation to join the business. Later joined by brother Ted, the third-generation owners continue to run the family business based upon the same western hospitality once embodied by their grandparents. Holding its reputation high, Wall Drug represents America's strong entrepreneurial spirit, built on innovation and perseverance and passed down through three generations of the Hustead family.

Why do I use this illustration to tell the Wall Drug story? Because it would be a shame to see family operations such as Wall Drug be sold off because of an untimely death in the family. That is what might happen to this business and these two other South Dakota stories that I will share with you. The effect of the death tax is very real on these family-owned operations, family-owned businesses.

In central South Dakota sits a 3,000-acre family farm. I will describe it as a medium-sized farming operation in South Dakota--not too big, not too small. Unfortunately, a death occurred in the family. As a result, $750,000 will likely be paid in taxes. This is a huge amount of money for a farm operation in my State, where land values can make an operation look a lot more valuable on paper than they are in reality. In other words, farmers like this can often be described as ``land rich'' and ``cash poor.'' All their value is in their land. When a massive death tax bill comes due, the only option is often to sell the land to pay this unjust tax. Thus, a family legacy comes to an end.

There is another operation in my State of South Dakota, with 10,000 acres in the north central part of the State. Like so many farms and ranches in South Dakota, the parents who have run the place for decades are now advancing in years. In this particular family, the mother passed away and the father is getting on in age. Their kids would like to continue in the business, but the tax on the farm would likely be $1.5 million. That might make it impossible for the kids to stay on and keep that family farm alive. I find it very disturbing that our Federal Tax Code could influence a family's ability to keep their farm from being broken up and sold off.

These are examples of real family farms that are facing the effects of the death tax. This is just not an exercise in the theoretical. Real farms, ranches, and real small businesses are watching how the Senate is going to act on this important issue. Our action, or inaction, this week will affect real businesses in each of our States.

Mr. President, in my State and other rural States, we are seeing the next generation leave for school and, too often, not coming back. We need to put in place incentives for our young people to keep rural America alive and strong. The death tax is an incentive for exactly the opposite effect. It can help push young people away from carrying on the family business in rural places. I hope the Senate will do the right thing and bring a permanent end to the unfair death tax.

I will offer one final thought on an argument we are hearing from the other side of the aisle. I have heard it said that repealing the death tax will add up to $1 trillion to the deficit. We heard a similar argument made when it came to reducing the tax rate on capital gains. The other side was wrong then, and they will be wrong again this time.

The analysts who have churned out figures in the trillion-dollar range are

not taking into consideration the nature of the death tax and its larger impact on the economy. With the death tax permanently killed, family business owners would then reroute tens of thousands of dollars from lawyers and accountants hired to avoid being hit by the death tax back into their business. There this capital would be used to hire another employee or add value to their operation.

In fact, repealing the death tax would remove the asterisk on the American promise of passing your hard-earned business or nest egg to your children or grandchildren. The death tax in its current form has a chilling effect on the creation of new family businesses that would be created if assets could be passed down to the next generation. How many next generation beneficiaries would have invested in a new business if only they had sufficient capital to do so? How often has the death tax prevented this? How many potential jobs were not created as a result?

The changes in economic behavior if the death tax was no longer a factor to consider is hard to determine. But the dividend and capital gains rate reductions serve as a good indicator. Those rate reductions have paid for themselves many times over in increased Government revenue.

Last month's budget report from the Treasury Department has tax receipts up by $137 billion, up 11.2 percent for the first 7 months of fiscal year 2006. The year before, if you look at 2004 to 2005, there was a $274 billion increase in Federal revenues, or 14.6 percent more Federal revenues for fiscal year 2005. Reducing those taxes spurred economic growth and increased Government revenue. That is exactly what I expect would happen if we were to eliminate once and for all the death tax.

So I ask my colleagues to take a look at the death tax and getting rid of it simply as a matter of bringing fairness to our Tax Code. That is how the American people view it; that is how South Dakotans view it. Even though many Americans might not have a substantial nest egg to pass on to their children, they understand the death tax to be unfair. For that reason, they oppose it. They also know that it is those very same small businesses, small farms, and ranch operations that are creating jobs and making it possible for young people to continue to stay in the rural areas of this country.

One recent poll suggests that 68 percent of Americans support repealing the death tax. It is simply unfair for death to be a taxable event. I urge my colleagues to allow us to vote, allow us to proceed to the debate, and to get an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate, and to join the House of Representatives, which passed it by a very big bipartisan vote--legislation that would repeal and end the death tax once and for all.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to join the debate and express my strong support for the marriage protection amendment, of which I am a cosponsor. Amending the Constitution of the United States, as many have noted, is serious business and is something we should only undertake when we have a compelling rationale.

This amendment meets that high standard. Nothing is more fundamental, nothing is more important to the fabric of American society than the family. And that is what this debate is really all about.

Every Member of this body, every citizen of this Nation understands, or at least should understand, that the traditional family is the glue that binds our communities, the building block on which our Nation is constructed. It is something that I as a father of two daughters and a husband of 20 years understand and appreciate.

Yet today, this pillar of our society is under attack by some who are pursuing a narrow social agenda designed to destroy the definition of marriage that has existed since the birth of civilization. They are trying to convince us that what virtually all Americans have understood for more than two centuries as self evident, is wrong.

People ask why do we need to do this now? Why is it necessary? As has been noted, despite widespread public disapproval, activist judges are eroding the different State laws that define marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman.

Currently nine States face lawsuits challenging their marriage laws. California, Maryland, New York, and Washington State trial courts have followed Massachusetts and found State marriage laws unconstitutional. The State supreme courts in New Jersey, Washington State, and New York could decide marriage cases this year.

The only sure way to prevent the courts from redefining marriage is to send to the States a Federal constitutional amendment that affirms marriage and prevents activist judges from hijacking that definition.

There have been those who have come to the floor and said that this really is not an issue the American people care about. Well, I beg to differ, if you look at what has happened in 19 States. Nineteen different States in this country have adopted constitutional amendments, by public vote, defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

That very initiative, that very vote will be on the ballot this fall in South Dakota. I predict that we will get a very comfortable margin in favor of that.

In fact, if you look at the average in all of these places around the country, all of the States that have debated this issue and voted on it, the average vote has been 70 percent. Seventy percent of the American people have a different way of deciding what they care about and what is important and that is sometimes different than politicians here in Washington.

Some have said there are more important issues we need to deal with. However, the fact of the matter is if you look at the agenda we have been talking about for the past several weeks right here in the U.S. Senate we have been dealing with those issues.

Yesterday several Democrat Senators expressed their frustration about this debate taking place, a sentiment that has been repeated throughout the course of the day by more of their Democratic colleagues. They say there are more important issues that need to be debated during this time instead of marriage. Putting aside the fact that protecting traditional marriage and families is an important topic, they seem to forget what has been occurring on the Senate floor.

They say we need to focus on health care, an issue that is very important to me and my constituents in South Dakota. However, they forget that when this issue was brought to the floor just a few short weeks ago, they filibustered not one, not two, but three solutions to the health care crisis that faces our country; namely two types of medical liability reform and the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act.

They say we need to tackle the high price of gasoline that has affected this entire country, something that again affects profoundly the people I represent in South Dakota. However, they must forget the battle that has been occurring since the early 1990s to open up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, to oil exploration. It is something that has been debated consistently and repeatedly here and blocked from consideration. Once developed, ANWR could provide about one million barrels of oil each day for the next 30 years, a good first step toward solving this complicated problem. However, what we have run into is continued filibusters on what is a very commonsense step toward reducing our energy dependence.

They are right, there are many important issues facing Americans throughout this country. However, they are pointing their fingers at the wrong people. If they are so serious about solving America's problems, they should let the Senate vote on these issues, including the Marriage Protection Amendment.

One of the other issues which has been raised throughout the course of this debate is that we should not trivialize the Constitution with this amendment, that somehow marriage does not meet the threshold or the criteria of the liberal elites to warrant discussion as an amendment to the Constitution.

Well, there again, if you look at just the last 20 years here in the U.S. Senate, there have been a whole range of constitutional amendments that have been proposed by our colleagues on the other side. In fact, there are over 100 constitutional amendments that have been proposed right here in the U.S. Senate by our colleagues on the other side.

I was listening earlier to the debate on the floor when the Senator from Illinois, the Democrat whip, and the Senator from Nevada, the Democrat leader, were talking again about how we ought to be talking about other issues. It is interesting to note if you look at some of the constitutional amendments that have been introduced here in the U.S. Senate, both of those particular Members, as well as others of our colleagues on the Democrat side, have cosponsored many of those amendments.

They have cosponsored amendments dealing with physical desecration of the flag, of which I am also a cosponsor, as well as an amendment dealing with the regulation of contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. There was an amendment proposed by the Senator from Illinois that would abolish the electoral college and provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President of the United States. There was a constitutional amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada that proposes repealing the 22nd amendment which establishes Presidential term limitations.

There are always constitutional amendments offered here in the U.S. Senate, and there are always those on both sides of the aisle who have varying levels of interest in those. But the reality is, that is what our Founders gave us. This is the mechanism they gave us whereby we can deal with some of these issues when there are constitutional questions.

What has prompted this debate in the U.S. Senate is the fact that States across this country, and in the Federal Government right here in Washington with the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, have all taken action on the issue of marriage. Yet, we have courts across the country that are challenging the will of the people in each of those respective decisions and going their own way. They are trying to redefine marriage in a way that is contrary to what I believe is the tradition of this country, not only the tradition of this country, but since the beginning of time.

This is an important issue. It is an important debate. It is a debate that I believe we need to have in this country.

The other thing that has been said by our colleagues on the other side is, Why debate something if you know it is not going to have the votes for passage? Well, we may not get to 67 votes this time around and I was not here in 2004 when the Senator from Colorado brought this amendment to the floor and it was voted on previously, but I am told it got somewhere around 48 votes. I think we will get more votes for it this time.

But the point is, why would we not debate meaningful issues here in the U.S. Senate? That is what we are here for. If we just brought legislation to the floor of the U.S. Senate that we knew we had the votes to pass, we would not be debating very much.

We had a lot of amendments to the immigration bill that we debated in the last couple of weeks that failed by large margins. Yet, I did not see anybody here saying we should not debate them because we know we do not have the votes here to pass it.

The Senator from Illinois was talking about this earlier today saying: We should not be debating this because we know it is not going to pass. The last amendment he offered to the immigration bill, that was debated in the last couple of weeks in the U.S. Senate, got just 34 votes. Well, I think he has a right to debate that in the U.S. Senate, just like I think the people across this country who care passionately about the defense of marriage have the right to do so as well.

The other thing that gets stated a lot in this debate is that we should not in any way erode States rights, that somehow this amendment steps on States rights. That is wrong. Think about it. This is what our Founders gave us. This is the mechanism whereby the people of this country can amend the Constitution.

It requires the active participation of people all across the country, through their elected Representatives here in the U.S. Senate where it takes a two-thirds vote and the House of Representatives where it takes a two-thirds vote. And then it goes to the States. Three- fourths of the States, 38 States, would have to ratify this in order for it to become a part of our Constitution. That is about as much public participation as you could possibly ask for.

Not to mention the fact, as I indicated earlier, that we have already had votes all across the country. Nineteen States have put it on the ballot. Nineteen States, by an average of 70 percent, have affirmed traditional marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

It seems to me the States ultimately are going to decide this issue. If in fact this body and the U.S. House get the two-thirds votes that are necessary to send it to the States, 50 State legislatures are going to be debating this. Thirty-eight of them are going to have to decide if it is the right thing to do before it ultimately becomes part of the Constitution of the United States.

Very simply, the reason for this debate is that people in this country want to know that we care enough about the institution of marriage to step up and defend it against attacks from liberal activist judges, against courts that have decided that they want to redefine what we have known to be true about marriage for the past several hundred years. That is where this debate ought to be heard.

It ought to be heard by the people of the United States of America. It has been in legislatures around the country. It is being heard here in the U.S. Senate today. The people's voice is what we do. We give voice to the issues that the people in this country care about, and I happen to believe that this is one of those issues.

That is fundamentally what this debate is about. It is not about whether or not there are enough votes to pass it. It is not about whether or not this warrants the threshold of what is worthy for a debate on a constitutional amendment.

As I said earlier, our colleagues on the other side who are objecting to that have offered over 100 constitutional amendments over the past 20 years in this institution. It seems to me that the definition of marriage, that fundamental foundational building block of American society, is certainly worthy and warrants discussion and the time of the U.S. Senate.

So I commend the Senator from Colorado for bringing this to the floor. I look forward to voting in favor of it. I urge my colleagues to do the same, because I believe that is what the American people would have us do.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on confirmation of three of President Bush's nominations. Once again, the President has nominated experienced, well-qualified individuals who deserve confirmation by the Senate.

The President has nominated Brett Kavanaugh to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Mr. Kavanaugh has extensive experience in the law, having formerly served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. He later served as Associate White House Counsel, where he worked on a wide variety of legal and constitutional issues. Mr. Kavanaugh also practiced law as a partner in the Washington, DC, law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, and most recently serves as Assistant to the President and staff secretary at the White House.

Yesterday I voted in favor of the motion to invoke cloture on Mr. Kavanaugh's nomination, which now allows the Senate to give him an up- or-down vote. I am pleased that the Senate will now be allowed to vote on Mr. Kavanaugh's nomination, and I hope the Senate will continue to give fair up-or-down votes to the other well-qualified judicial nominees the President forwards to the Senate.

The President has also nominated GEN Michael Hayden as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. General Hayden is a career Air Force officer with a distinguished history of service to our country. His previous service as Director of the National Security Agency will serve him well in his new role at the CIA, where I believe he will continue to be a strong leader in service to our Nation.

Finally, the President has nominated Gov. Dirk Kempthorne to serve as Secretary of the Department of the Interior. Governor Kempthorne has an impressive career in public service, having served as a United States Senator representing the State of Idaho in this body for 6 years. I am confident that his career of public service and his Western State perspective will help him be an effective and responsible steward of our country's public lands, waters, and other natural resources.

Unfortunately, a family obligation prevents me from being present during these votes. However, I support each of these nominees and, if present, would vote to confirm them. I therefore ask that the record reflect my support for each of these nominations.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, in the spirit of Memorial Day, which is fast approaching, I rise today to pay tribute to two sons of South Dakota who dedicated and ultimately sacrificed their lives for their country. These men died on battlefields far from home, to protect us and to advance the cause of freedom. LT Robert Kenneth Thompson and SSG Gregory Wagner both died in service to this great nation at very different times in America's history. They fought in conflicts many years apart, but both understood the importance of preserving and promoting freedom. On this Memorial Day, it is appropriate to remember not only those who have fallen in the present conflict in Iraq, but those who have fallen in previous conflicts as well.

LT Robert Kenneth Thompson of Flandreau, SD, was inducted into the United States Army on December 27, 1948. At the time of his death, LT Thompson was on assignment fighting in the Korean conflict. He was killed in action on February 12, 1951 north of Hoengsong, Korea while serving as a member of Battery A, 503rd Field Artillery.

Lieutenant Thompson had served in the United States Army for just over 2 years before his life was cut tragically short. LT Thompson dedicated his life to his country. He selflessly answered when duty called, even though it meant leaving his family behind. LT Thompson's patriotism and courage will not be forgotten.

Lieutenant Thompson is survived by his wife Doris and daughter Vicki. Today we remember his selfless dedication and service to all Americans, and his sacrifice will always have meaning to all future generations of Americans, as long as our Republic exists.

SSG Gregory Wagner of Alexandria, SD, was a full-time heavy mobile equipment repairer for the National Guard in Mitchell's Battery A, 147th Field Artillery and was deployed with the Yankton, SD unit. As a member of the Battery C, 1st Battalion, 147th Field Artillery, he was chosen as the Task Force 519th Military Police Battalion ``Hero of the Week'', having distinguished himself with his remarkable achievements. His mission in Iraq involved training and educating the Iraqi police force.

SSG Wagner made the ultimate sacrifice on May 8, 2006 during his service in Iraq. He was honored with a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. He will be remembered for his loyalty and dedication to his family, friends, fellow service-members, and his country.

SSG Wagner was a devoted, small-town guy who graduated from Hanson High in 1989. He was an admirer of his father, Charles Wagner, who served in the military as a sergeant in the U.S. Army. Each year at the Memorial Day services in Alexandria, SD, Charles would read the roll of soldiers. When he passed away, Greg stood in his place. My heart goes out to his mother, Velma, to all his siblings, and to his community as SGT Wagner's name is read at this year's Memorial Day service.

LT Thompson and SSG Wagner both laid down their lives for their country, and to free others from tyranny. While we are currently engaged in a very different kind of war, nothing has changed in that which we are ultimately trying to protect. For my freedom and for your freedom and to spread this freedom across the globe, our soldiers have risked and sacrificed their lives. On this Memorial Day, as we pause to reflect on those who have died so that we all might live in freedom, we can do no more to honor them than to remain dedicated to the same principles for which they stood and devoted their lives.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my name be added as an original cosponsor of the Isakson amendment.

Mr. President, I would like to speak in support of that amendment this morning.

This approach is a very sound concept. In fact, as we get to the debate about immigration, clearly the first and most important issue to deal with is the issue of border security, and the people across this country are asking us to deal with it. Frankly, until we deal with that issue, we can't move on to the next issue of dealing with the 12 million people who are here already. Until we give the American people the confidence that we are serious about enforcing the border, that becomes an irrelevant conversation. This is a very simple concept.

I have supported the Isakson amendment since he first introduced it. We discussed this issue several weeks ago when he had his amendment filed and pending. I am glad we will have an opportunity to vote on it. I believe it is a very sound approach. It simply says that until we do these things, we can't do these things. The first and foremost paramount responsibility here is border security.

We need to enforce our borders. The Isakson amendment makes that abundantly clear.

Again, before we can deal with the other issues in this debate, I believe the American people expect us to have a secure border and one that is enforced and one that we are serious about in getting our illegal immigration stopped.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the students who participated in the Truancy Court Project for the Pennington County Juvenile Diversion Program.

The 17 students who successfully participated in the Truancy Court Project deserve the special recognition they are receiving today. After starting off the school year with a rocky beginning, each individual student took it upon themselves to volunteer for this project and to excel at it. Each of them has improved attendance, improved their relationships with their teachers, and most importantly learned the value of education.

It gives me great pleasure to rise with the citizens of Rapid City and Ellsworth in congratulating the Truancy Court Project students for their successful participation in the program.

Mr. President, in probably a few minutes we are going to be voting on whether to extend the tax relief that was passed by this Congress in 2001 and 2003, and thereby give the markets in this economy some certainty about what the rules are going to be. Frankly, that is something that investors need to know. They need to know for tax consequence purposes whether Congress is going to be changing the law, whether Congress is going to be raising taxes.

I think there is probably no better issue that illustrates the differences in philosophy between the two political parties in the Senate than does this one because it is the question of who spends the money. Do the American people spend the money? Do the taxpayers in the country get to spend their own money? Or do they send it to Washington, DC, so the politicians can spend it?

You have heard a lot of debate from both sides on this issue. If you look at the statistics, it is pretty clear that beginning in 2003--of course, there were tax cuts in 2001 and then subsequent tax cuts in 2003--the economy has behaved in a remarkable way. That proves, once again, that the lessons of history have a tendency to repeat themselves.

If you go back clear to the 1920s under President Harding when you cut taxes, when you cut marginal tax rates, you get not less revenue but you get more government revenue. It happened in the 1920s under President Harding, it happened in the 1960s under President Kennedy, it happened in the 1980s under President Reagan, and it is happening today.

If you look at the U.S. economy today, again in the first quarter of this year, there is 4.8 percent growth, the fastest rate in 2.5 years. The economy has been growing for 17 straight quarters. The average growth rate last year was 3.5 percent. There were 211,000 jobs created in March, 2.1 million jobs in the last 12 months, and more than 5.2 million jobs since August of 2003.

The unemployment rate has fallen to 4.7 percent, lower than the average of the last three decades, and led by strong home values and a steadily rising stock market; household wealth is at an all-time high, reaching $52.1 trillion in the fourth quarter of 2005; home ownership remains very close to its all-time high, more than 69 percent reached in early 2005.

As I said earlier, the ironic thing about this is the assumption that is made by many on the other side. You go back to 2003. The Democratic leader said:

The tax cuts didn't work to stimulate the economy during

the Reagan years and they are not working now.

That was the suggestion made in 2003 by our colleagues on the other side. Yet, again, the facts have borne out a very different story. That story is an incredible response to the tax relief, a growing economy, record numbers of jobs, and ironically--people might think this is counterintuitive--when you cut marginal tax rates, when you cut capital gains rates, you get not less Government revenue, you get more.

That is exactly what we have seen here. The Government revenues between 2004 and 2005 increased $274 billion, a 14-percent increase in Government revenues between 2004 and 2005. Between 2005 and 2006, the first 8 months that we are measuring for this year, Government revenues are up 11 percent, another $137 billion over the baseline of what was projected previously.

So when you add that up, the fact that we are creating jobs, growing the economy, raising more revenue for the Government not less, we have again unemployment at an all-time low. And how do our colleagues on the other side want to reward that? With a big, fat tax increase because essentially if we don't extend these tax cuts. What we will in effect be doing is raising taxes; marginal tax rates will go back up, capital gains tax rates will go back up, dividend tax rates will go back up, and you will see higher taxes which have the opposite effect of what we want to see happen. We have stimulated the economy. It is growing, it is expanding, and rather than continue on that path by extending these tax cuts and allowing the economy to continue to expand and grow and create jobs, the Democrats, rather, would allow the tax cuts to expire thereby raising tax rates and mess with what is a very good thing in the economy right now.

That is the opposite of what we ought to be doing. We ought to be extending these tax cuts. We ought to be giving people in this country an opportunity to take their realizations, to pay taxes, continue to invest, and continue to grow the economy and create jobs. There are provisions that have expired or will soon expire, including the expensing for business equipment purchases for small businesses, relief from the alternative minimum tax--which is catching more and more middle-income taxpayers in this country--and, of course, lowering tax rates on dividends and capital gains.

Ironically, contrary to the arguments that have been made by the other side, if you look at who benefits from the tax relief--I am just going to use one example, dividend tax relief--those making under $50,000 a year see their taxes cut 7.6 percent. Seniors in this country see their taxes cut by 17.1 percent. Those making over $200,000, the so-called rich in this country, as has been argued by the other side, realize a 2.2-percent tax cut.

Where do the dividends tax relief benefits go? To people making under $50,000, to seniors across this country. We have a lot in both of those categories in my State of South Dakota, people who are making under $50,000, and a high proportion of seniors in my State who will benefit from this tax relief.

It seems to me, at least, that when we have this vote in a few minutes, if we want to do right by the American people--and, again, we want to assert what is a fundamental principle that at least I think most of us on this side of the aisle adhere to, and that is the American public is better and the American economy is better, frankly, if individuals across this country, taxpayers in this country, are making their own decisions about how to spend their own money for their families, for themselves, for their communities, rather than sending that money to Washington, DC, and having the Government and politicians in Washington decide how to spend it.

That I think probably points out as well as anything else in this debate that we are having today the difference in philosophy between those of us on this side of the aisle who want to extend the tax relief that was enacted in 2001 and 2003 and those who want to allow that tax relief to expire, thereby creating a huge, massive tax increase on the American people at a time when the economy is growing, creating jobs, expanding at a record level.

I hope today when the vote comes that we will have a strong vote in favor of growing this economy and creating additional jobs for Americans and allowing people in this country to keep more of what they earn and spend it on their own priorities, rather than sending it to Washington, DC, and allowing the politicians to spend it.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, the debate we are having today on small business health plans is a debate that I hope will ultimately lead to a vote in the Senate on this legislation.

This bill, or something very similar to it, has passed the House of Representatives on eight--eight--different occasions. Small business health plans have passed the other body, the House of Representatives, on eight different occasions.

I believe if we were allowed to vote today on this legislation in the Senate, we would have a big majority vote--a decisive majority vote-- because I believe a majority of Senators support the legislation that has been produced by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee under the leadership of Chairman Enzi. I believe there is strong majority support for that in the Senate.

Unfortunately, what will happen today--and in the days ahead--is we will not get a chance to have that vote because our colleagues on the other side have decided again to filibuster this legislation, to block it from ultimately being voted on. That is unfortunate. It is unfortunate for, most importantly, the people across this country who do not have health insurance coverage.

I will not yield at this point. You had your time, Senator.

I am not prepared to yield at this time. I will allow you to speak on your own time.

But the important point is that this particular legislation has not had an opportunity to be voted on in the Senate, legislation that would help small businesses in this country that currently cannot cover their employees, that currently have families of those employees without coverage.

In fact, if you ask small businesses today--and about 22.5 million of the 45 million uninsured in this country are employees of small businesses or are their families, and about another 15 million are self-employed in small businesses--the reason they cannot cover their employees is the cost.

What this legislation attempts to do is address the issue of cost, to make health insurance more affordable to more Americans, to small businesses, to their employees, to their families, to self-employed people in this country who currently do not have coverage because of the cost.

It is a very simple concept. It is a concept that has been passed eight times by the House of Representatives but never voted on in the Senate because of obstruction on the other side. They will not allow it to come to a vote. That is unfortunate because this is an issue the American people expect us to address.

So I hope when all is said and done, my colleagues on the other side--the Senator from Massachusetts has strong feelings on this particular issue, which he has articulated--have an opportunity to air those opinions, to debate this issue, but that, in the end, they let it be voted on.

Let's let this come to a vote. Let the will of the majority in the Senate decide one way or the other about whether we want to do something about the high cost of health care in this country to cover more people.

The Congressional Budget Office has said--the Senator from Massachusetts quoted the CBO--the Congressional Budget Office has said, if this legislation is enacted, almost a million more people in this country will be covered and, in fact, it will lead to lower insurance costs.

So it is a good deal for the people who are uninsured. It is a good deal for the small businesses that are trying to cover their employees. And I might add, it is a good deal for the taxpayers because the Congressional Budget Office has also said if this particular piece of legislation is enacted, the cost of Medicaid to the Federal Government will go down by almost $1 billion and the cost of Medicaid to State governments will go down by about $600 million.

Further, the Congressional Budget Office has also found that this will actually lead to higher revenues for the Federal Government. Why? Because when the small business cost of health care goes down, they are able to provide more benefits and more in the form of salaries to their employees. Those salaries and some of those benefits are taxable. Health insurance benefits are tax excluded in many cases. So those benefits and those additional salaries would be taxed at the marginal income tax rates, and it would generate, according to the Congressional Budget Office, an additional $3.3 billion over a 10-year period for the Federal coffers.

So we have a bill that covers more people, according to CBO, that lowers insurance rates, according to CBO, and that actually generates more revenue for the Federal Government. Yet we cannot vote on it. Why? Because our colleagues on the other side will not allow this legislation to be voted on.

I think the American people deserve and expect more from their elected leadership. As I said, the House of Representatives has voted eight times in support of this, with strong majorities. I believe there is a majority in the Senate in favor of this bill, if we could bring it to a vote today. Maybe we won't vote on it today. Maybe we would vote on it tomorrow or maybe we would vote on it next week, but let's vote on it.

Let's vote. That is what we are here for. Let's debate the issue, but let's vote. Let's not use the rules of the Senate to obstruct something that has clear majority support in the House, something that has been debated here but never voted on in the Senate because it has been blocked from final consideration.

Let me also say one other thing about this debate because there is a proposal that has been talked about some on the floor of the Senate, offered up by some of our colleagues on the other side, that is intended to respond to the Enzi legislation, the small business health plan legislation, that we are currently debating.

Interestingly enough, that particular piece of legislation offered by our colleagues on the other side is a Government-type approach to this issue. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, has found that the proposal they put forward actually costs the taxpayers $73 billion over a 10-year period.

So you have two bills. You have a bill that has been offered by Senator Enzi, the chairman of the HELP Committee, offered by the leadership on this side of the aisle, which lowers cost, which covers more people, which has been found to actually save the taxpayers money; and a bill that has been offered by our colleagues on the other side, at a cost to the taxpayers of $73 billion in additional tax dollars over a 10-year period.

Now, it seems to me, at least, that if you are a taxpayer, that bill is not a very good deal. It is also a proposal that leads to more redtape, more bureaucracy, more Government, at a time when we ought to be looking for ways to improve the market-based system we currently have in this country, by

allowing our small businesses to take advantage of the leverage they could gain by joining larger groups.

The very simple principle behind this legislation, behind the Enzi bill, is to allow small businesses around this country and their employees to be part of a larger group, thereby driving down the cost of their insurance premiums.

I will not yield at the moment. We have a few minutes left on our time, and then the Senator from Illinois could use his time to speak.

Not at the moment. Thank you, though.

What I would simply say is, the bill offered by the Senator from Illinois and by his colleagues on the other side is, again, legislation that comes at a high cost to the taxpayers: $73 billion over a 10-year period.

So it is important, when we have this debate, that the people in this country who are following the debate have a clear understanding of what the differences are between the approaches that are being offered--the Enzi bill, the bill that is under consideration today, the small business health plans bill, and the bill offered by our colleagues on the other side--the differences in terms of their approach, one being a Government approach, one being a market-based approach, one actually being scored by the Congressional Budget Office as achieving savings for the Federal taxpayer, and one that clearly adds to the costs of the taxpayer by about $73 billion over a 10-year period.

This has been dubbed Health Week because we are debating health care legislation. Small business health plans is one component of that. We also tried, Monday, to get a vote on legislation that would allow for reforms in our medical malpractice system that would, hopefully, again, drive down the cost of covering people in this country. The high cost of medical malpractice insurance is driving OB/GYNs and other specialists and providers out of the profession, driving up the cost of health care in this country.

In fact, the Department of Health and Human Services, a couple years ago, did a study that suggested the cost of defensive medicine and the cost of the medical malpractice system we have in the country today is actually costing the taxpayers, under Medicaid, an additional $22.5 billion a year.

It is important we address these issues. I believe the American people want us to act. More importantly, they want us at least to vote. That is all I am simply saying. For those on the other side who have consistently resisted the enactment of these two pieces of legislation, that is fine. I understand that is part of this process, that we have a very open and free-flowing debate. That is part of the Senate. That is part of our democratic process we have here.

But when all is said and done, let's bring this to a vote so the people of this country, who expect action out of the Senate, at least know where their elected folks stand when it comes to the issue of small business and whether we are going to provide health care for the employees of small businesses across this country and whether we are going to do anything to address what I think is a very important economic issue to a majority of Americans; that is, this ever-rising, increasing cost of health care.

These two pieces of legislation--small business health care plans, S. 1955, offered by Senator Enzi, the chairman of the HELP Committee--and it is a bipartisan bill; it also has Democratic support, although not enough to stop a filibuster--and the medical malpractice reform legislation, which, again, there were two pieces of medical malpractice reform legislation voted on Monday--we were not able to get enough votes to stop a filibuster to invoke cloture--but, there again, I believe both pieces of legislation have majority support in the Senate and, clearly, have majority support in the House of Representatives.

They have already passed there repeatedly. Small businesses health plans have passed eight times in the House of Representatives. Medical malpractice reform has passed five times in the House of Representatives. That legislation has come to the floor of the Senate and has been blocked from receiving an up-and-down vote.

I think it is in the best interest of people across this country who are expecting Congress to act on the issue of health care and the high cost of health care. They want us to come up with solutions that respect and are in the best interest of the American taxpayer. I believe these two pieces of legislation accomplish that objective.

So I hope before this Health Week is over--and even if we have to push this into next week--we at least get a vote on the floor of the Senate that will enable us to take final action on a couple of pieces of legislation that have been lingering around here for way too long and deserve action by the Senate.

With that, Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, I cannot yield, but if the Senator from Massachusetts requests time and wants to use the Democratic time for that, we have 14 minutes on the majority side I would like to use to talk about the small business health plan. But if the Senator from Massachusetts wants to use Democratic time, that is fine.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, if necessary, that I have a couple of additional minutes beyond that. I believe the other side was granted a little bit of extra time when they were addressing this issue as well.

Mr. President, last week the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation sponsored ``Cover the Uninsured'' week, a call for this country to wake up and address a huge and growing problem in our Nation. In 2004, approximately 19.1 percent of nonelderly Americans did not have health insurance. That number is growing.

Why do we have this problem in one of the wealthiest nations in the world? It is because nearly one-half of the 45 million uninsured individuals in the United States are either employees of small firms or family members of small business employees.

The primary reason cited by small businesses themselves for not offering health benefits is simply the high cost of health insurance. We can do something about that beginning today. We

also have this problem because Congress has repeatedly failed to do its job in the past. We can also do something about that, beginning today.

Today the Senate voted on a motion to proceed to S. 1955, which is a bipartisan bill addressing the issue of the working uninsured. This legislation allows the creation of small business health plans to help lower the cost of health care for small business owners and their employees.

Our colleagues on the other side have also offered some legislation today to address this issue. Senators Durbin and Lincoln have talked about their particular proposal, which is a Government approach. In fact, they say it saves money, but it shifts the costs over to the taxpayers, to the tune of $73 billion over a 10-year period. Why would we ask for taxpayers to foot the bill before we have allowed the small businesses of this country to take advantage of a market-based approach and to use the market forces that exist out there in a way that would drive health care costs down for them and their employees? It is very simply a difference of philosophy.

Our philosophy--the approach contemplated under S. 1955--deals with a market-based solution to this issue. The proposal, S. 2510, by our colleagues on the other side is a Federal Government solution to this issue, at a great cost, I might add, to the taxpayers of $73 billion over a 10-year period.

S. 1955, the Enzi bill, which, as I said earlier, we were able to move to proceed to today, would lower the cost of care for employers and employees. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office estimates S. 1955 would reduce net Federal spending for Medicaid by about $790 million over the next 10 years. It would also save the States of this country about $600 million in the cost of Medicaid over a 10-year period. That is in addition, as I said, to the savings that would be achieved for small businesses.

The Congressional Budget Office has analyzed this particular piece of legislation and concluded it would save somewhere between 2 and 3 percent for small firms in this country on the cost of their health insurance. What is significant about this, as well, in contrast to the proposal by our colleagues on the other side, which would cost an additional $73 billion over the course of the next 10 years, is the Congressional Budget Office said that the Enzi bill, S. 1955, would increase tax revenues coming into the Government by $3.3 billion over 10 years because lower spending on health insurance would increase the share of employee compensation paid in taxable wages and salaries versus tax-excluded health benefits. In other words, lower spending on health insurance would translate into higher wages and salaries and actually would also generate more revenue for the Federal Government rather than less, which is what would happen under the proposal by the Democrats, which would cost the taxpayers $73 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, over a 10-year period.

So I believe it is important we move forward and we vote to send S. 1955 out of the Senate to conference with the House. As a Member of the House of Representatives, I voted for the creation of small business health plans numerous times. In fact, that particular proposal has been voted on no fewer than eight times in the House of Representatives.

Every time I voted when I was a Member of the House, and every time it has been passed by the House of Representatives, it has come to the Senate and has been unable to be voted on because it has been filibustered, obstructed by the other side. I would say, that is in spite of the fact that if it were allowed an up-or-down vote in the Senate, I believe there would be a decisive bipartisan majority in favor of this legislation.

Unfortunately, due to obstructionism, the Senate, until today, has never voted on legislation creating small business health plans. As a Congressman and now Senator, I have listened to many accusations about the harm that S. 1955 or similar legislation would do if it were enacted.

What harm would be caused by decreasing the cost of health care for small employers by 12 percent and increasing the coverage of the working uninsured by 8 percent? Lower cost and more coverage for those who are currently uninsured: That is not harm. That is exactly what we ought to be accomplishing here by enacting legislation that would make health care coverage more affordable and more available to more Americans.

South Dakota has an estimated 72,949 small businesses as of 2004, which is an increase of 2.4 percent from the previous year in 2003. South Dakota also had an estimated 90,000 uninsured individuals or 12 percent of our population in the year 2004. Fifty-two percent of South Dakotans had employer-based health insurance, 8 percent below the national average.

Small businesses are the backbone of South Dakota's, as well as our Nation's, economy. It is time these businesses were placed on a level playing field and allowed to pool together to purchase health insurance, like large employers and unions.

I have heard from many provider groups in my State of South Dakota concerned about coverage for their specific services. S. 1955 allows small business health plans to offer a basic benefit plan that would be exempt from State mandates as long as the small business health plan also offers an enhanced benefits option that includes at least those covered benefits and providers that are covered by a State employee health benefit plan in one of the five most populated States in this country.

According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, all of these States--all of these States--require coverage for alcoholism, breast reconstruction, diabetes self-management, diabetic supplies, emergency services, mammograms, mastectomy stays, maternity stays, general mental health, chiropractors, optometrists, podiatrists, psychologists, and social workers.

Small business owners want to give their employees the best health coverage possible under their budgets to recruit and retrain their workforce. Facts suggest self-insured large company health plans, currently exempt from State mandates, generally cover services important to their employees.

This legislation would create new options for small businesses and the potential for a choice in health plans for their employees. Today, only 10 percent of firms with 50 or fewer employees offer their workforce a choice of more than one health plan. Lowering the administrative costs of health insurance plans will give small firms new and better coverage choices for their workers.

Additionally, the GAO found that the added cost of mandates to a typical plan is between 5 and 22 percent. CBO estimates that every 1- percent increase in insurance costs results in 200,000 to 300,000 more uninsured Americans. When the cost of health insurance goes up, coverage and access go down.

The concept behind S. 1955 is very simple: to provide health insurance to small businesses that is both affordable and accessible. Small businesses not only in my State of South Dakota but across the Nation have been fighting for the creation of small business health plans for over 10 years. It is high time that the obstruction end in the Senate, that the Senate step aside and allow an up-and-down vote on this very important legislation.

As I said before, it is legislation that, if you look at just the Congressional Budget Office findings, would cover nearly a million more people, would allow three out of every four small business employees to pay lower premiums than they currently pay under current law, and would see small firms' premium costs decline by 2 to 3 percent. The average decrease per firm would likely be greater, since the CBO estimate is a total that factors in the costs of other benefits added by firms in response to the reduction in premiums.

It would also allow annual spending on employer-sponsored health insurance to be reduced by about $2 billion in a 5-year period. As I said earlier, it would increase Federal tax revenues by $3.3 billion over 10 years because lower spending on health insurance would increase the share of employee compensation paid in taxable wages and salaries versus tax-excluded health benefits--more coverage; lower costs; more revenue to the Federal Treasury, not less. The alternative offered by our colleagues on the other side, as I said earlier, comes at a high cost to the taxpayers: $73 billion over a 5-year period.

We can do better. We can allow the market forces of this country to be used. We can take a market-based approach to this issue and do something that has been done a long time ago, something that has, as I said, been voted on repeatedly in the House of Representatives, never to have been voted on here in the Senate, because it has been blocked.

It is high time for the small businesses of this country, for their employees, for families who lack coverage today, to have another tool at their disposal, a tool that takes into account and takes full advantage of market forces, by allowing small businesses to group together to leverage their size, to drive down the rates they pay for health insurance and, thereby, cover more of their employees.

That, again, is in stark contrast to the model and the proposal that is being offered by our colleagues on the other side, which consists of a government-based solution, that comes at a very high cost to the taxpayers, that calls for more bureaucracy and redtape, and does nothing in the end to bring down the cost of health care for small businesses in this country.

It is long overdue. I hope, as we have the chance to debate this now in the Senate, once that debate is concluded, we will be able to proceed to a vote because the one thing that has always been missed here in the Senate, despite action on eight different occasions in the House, is an actual up-and-down vote in the Senate that would allow the Senate to speak on the issue of whether we want to do something meaningful to reduce the cost of health care for small businesses in this country, to provide more coverage for those who are currently uninsured, and also to do something that would reduce the cost to the Government, the cost of Medicaid, as well as the other costs that are associated, as I said earlier, by increasing the amount that would come into the Treasury.

For those reasons, Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on a couple of cloture motions dealing with medical malpractice reform. We will have a debate later this week on small business health plans. This is a week in which we have an opportunity to address what is probably one of the most important, if not the most important, domestic policy issues that we will deal with in the foreseeable future; that is, access to health care for more Americans, more affordable health care for more Americans.

These issues are not new to the Congress. In fact, as a Member of the House of Representatives, I had the opportunity to vote numerous times on medical malpractice reform, on small business health plans to allow more people to have access to health care by joining larger groups, thereby driving down the cost of insurance and providing coverage to some of the 45 million people who currently are not covered.

Estimates are that as small business health plans pass, we will have 11 million more Americans with health insurance, making a big dent in the ranks of the uninsured. In the time since I first came to Congress in 1996, in the last

decade, there have been 13 different votes in the Congress: There have been five votes on medical malpractice reform; there have been eight votes on small business health plans. In those cases, the House of Representatives has acted. There have been majority votes coming out of the House. That legislation would then come to the Senate where it would be obstructed, filibustered, and ultimately would die.

I submit to my colleagues that these are both measures for which there is majority support in the Congress. If you look at the House, they have passed it repeatedly. If you look at the Senate, if we had a vote today and we had to get 51 votes or a simple majority in the Senate, we would be able to pass medical malpractice reform. We would also be able to pass small business health plans. The other side has repeatedly denied us an opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on these particular issues. That is wrong. It is wrong for a lot of reasons, but it is wrong, most importantly, because it is hurting the welfare of Americans who desperately need access to health care and need the cost of health care brought down.

Today when we vote on medical malpractice reform, we will be addressing an issue that affects the well-being of all Americans because in one way or another, when physicians have to deal with escalating premiums for liability insurance, those costs ultimately get passed on to all of us. If you don't believe that, look at the statistics.

In 2002, the Health and Human Services issued an update on the medical liability crisis. It found that the direct cost of medical liability coverage and the indirect cost of defensive medicine increased the amount the Federal Government must pay for Federal health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid by $22.5 billion a year.

Additionally, a January 2006 Pricewaterhouse Coopers study entitled ``The Factors Fueling Rising Health Care Costs,'' concluded that medical liability and defensive medicine accounted for 10 percent of the increase in the rising cost of health insurance premiums.

The median liability jury award in medical liability cases almost tripled between 1997 and 2004. In 2003, the GAO found:

Losses on medical malpractice claims--which make up the

largest part of insurers' costs--appear to be the primary

driver of rate increases in the long run.

With these statistics and findings of not only the GAO but numerous independent studies, it is easy to see that it is time for Congress to address the medical liability crisis. S. 22 and S. 23 provide needed and sensible medical liability reform. Based on the Texas stacked cap model for noneconomic damages, these pieces of legislation allow up to $750,000 for noneconomic damages and unlimited awards for economic damages. Additionally, plaintiffs may recover punitive damages twice the amount of economic damages, or $250,000, whichever is greater.

S. 22 and S. 23 also maximize patient recovery by limiting the fees attorneys may recover on a contingency basis. My State of South Dakota currently has a cap of $500,000 for noneconomic damages. S. 22 and S. 23 respect States rights and do not preempt noneconomic damage caps in place, not only in South Dakota but in 25 other States as well. It is time the obstruction in the Senate come to an end and that we put patients before lawyers and allow a straight up-or-down vote on S. 22 and S. 23. Obstructing a vote on medical liability reform jeopardizes every American's access to quality health care and raises the cost for individual taxpayers as well as for State and Federal Governments. This is especially true in rural States such as South Dakota where there is only one licensed physician for every 450 residents.

I believe it is high time the Senate show the American people that Congress understands their concerns about access to and the cost of health care. Pass S. 22 and S. 23 and do what I believe a majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives support; that is, to address the rising cost of health care by putting reasonable limits in place, many of which have been adopted and are successfully working in States throughout the country. It is time to end the obstruction and allow these measures to be voted on. I hope my colleagues will vote that way when the cloture votes come up.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair for yielding time on this amendment.

This amendment would provide an additional $20 million for veterans health care, offset by striking $20 million that would be appropriated under this supplemental for the Americorps program. The Americorps program has already received $900 million in appropriations for fiscal year 2006, according to the committee report on this bill.

In 2005, the VA transferred $452 million from its Medical Facilities account to its Medical Services account. I would like to replenish the VA Medical Facilities account a little, if it's possible to do in a fiscally responsible way. This amendment provides the opportunity to do so, by taking money from an ineffective and mismanaged program--the Americorps National Civilian Community Service Corps program--and providing it for veterans health care.

Mr. President, my amendment would make some resources available to carry out the Secretary's Capital Asset Realignment for Enhancement Services, or CARES, decision, which mandated that 156 priority community-based clinics be established by 2012.

As I said, talking about AmeriCorps, Senator Mikulski has described the overall AmeriCorps Program as ``like Enron's nonprofit.''

What has been said by GAO--they described it as they have been living on the edge, with tracking based on projections instead of real accounts.

My amendment simply helps us understand that the budget process is about making choices, about setting priorities, and that providing assistance for this program under the VA health care and using as an offset to pay for it this AmeriCorps Program, which has already been funded at $900 million this year, and, as I have described, has been described by many, including those on the other side of the aisle, as a program that has serious management problems, serious financial accounting and tracking problems.

So I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, is there a pending amendment?

Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 3704.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield myself 5 minutes to speak to the amendment.

I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of America's veterans. My amendment provides an additional $20 million for veterans health care, offset by striking $20 million appropriated under this supplemental for the AmeriCorps Program.

Among other things, my amendment provides more funding for the implementation of the provisions of the 2004 CARES Act, or capital asset realignment for enhanced services decision, submitted by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for enhanced VA service, as well as other actions designed to help the VA provide better and more accessible care to our Nation's veterans.

As we seek to restrain spending, we must carefully scrutinize our priorities. Our veterans must take priority over programs and some of the other priorities we are trying to address in the budget. My amendment does this with AmeriCorps. We must do everything we can in a fiscally responsible way to ensure our veterans receive the health care they require.

While we provide a generous funding of over $30 billion for VA health care for the current fiscal year, there is still room for improvement, if we can do so in a way that does not force us to spend beyond our means.

This is particularly true as we take care of those veterans who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan. Finally, this amendment is particularly important for veterans living in rural and geographically isolated areas. For example, the VA's Midwest health care network, which serves South Dakota, is the most rural and covers the largest geographic region of any veterans integrated service network in the Nation. It is therefore one of my highest priorities to ensure that veterans living in rural areas continue to see growth in the VA's ability to reach out to our rural veterans and provide adequate care for them.

For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I simply say, as a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, one of the debates we often have at the committee level is how, on a consistent basis, we have to borrow from the medical facilities account to fund ongoing operations, to fund veterans health care.

What this amendment simply does is, in an offset way, in a paid-for way, force us to make choices. Obviously, the budget process is always about choices, about where we are going to invest, where we are going to put our limited resources. In this era of budgetary constraint, it is important we make choices that are consistent with the priorities I believe we ought to be addressing in this country, one of which is the importance of our veterans, in making sure we are putting the appropriate funding levels in place not only to provide health care for our veterans but to make sure those facilities out there that are in need of improvement, that are in need of additional dollars for construction or rehabilitation or whatever the case may be, that there are dollars in place that would enable us to meet that very important need.

Again, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I believe it does reflect a priority that is important to Members of the Senate, certainly a priority that is important to members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and done in a way that is offset, that is paid for, and more accurately reflects on what we ought to be spending tax dollars.

With that, I ask unanimous consent my amendment be laid aside, and I yield the floor.