Floor Statements

Madam President, I want to take a few moments to discuss the estate tax and explain why I support its permanent repeal.

I am well aware that many see the move to eliminate the estate tax as little more than a gift to the rich. In my home State of Utah, for instance, the Salt Lake Tribune characterized the elimination of the estate tax as nothing more than ``subsidizing spoiled heiresses at the expense of everyone else.''

I believe that while this is a commonly held view of the estate tax, it is an unfair and inaccurate pejorative of a principled policy position. A punitive tax on inherited wealth is in no one's best interest, least of all the people with no inherited wealth. The Tax Code should collect revenue in a way that does the least harm to economic growth, and this goal should take precedence over any desire to punish the Paris Hiltons of the world.

Without a doubt, the high estate tax rate harms economic growth.

Perhaps our tax system's biggest flaw is that it taxes the returns to investment, usually more than once. When our employer pays us a dollar, both the Federal and State governments gets their share. When we save what is left over by investing it in stocks or bonds, the government takes another bite at the apple by getting a share of the profits of the company in which we invested. And when the stock or bond delivers an investment return to us, we get to pay the tax man yet again.

The estate tax is often yet another layer of taxation on the investment. How many times does the government need a cut of our money?

At what point do we stand up and say: Don't tax more; spend less?

Because of the estate tax, people save less than they otherwise would and as a result businesses have less capital available to use to grow, expand, and create jobs. With less investment, workers are less productive and wages are lower than would otherwise be the case.

The Bush administration's signature economic achievement, in my view, has been to lower the tax on dividends and capital gains, a change that deserves much of the credit for the strong productivity growth of the past three years. This policy change greatly increased investment and the concomitant growth in output has a lot to do with the simply incredible growth in tax revenue we have seen in the past 2 years.

It now appears that we will collect 30 percent more tax revenue this year than we did just 2 years ago, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This is really incredible. Especially when you consider that the economy was headed for a free fall just 5 years ago. Our efforts to cut taxes have saved our economy over the last 5 years.

A sensible tax system should tax income just once and at a low rate. The inheritance tax does neither.

The current 46-percent estate tax rate borders on being confiscatory. Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute reports that out of the 50 largest economies in the world, we have the third highest estate tax rate.

Len Burman of the Urban Institute recently wrote that it is time for both sides of the aisle to agree that the U.S. Tax Code should be designed solely to collect money in the most efficient way possible, so that it does the least damage to economic growth. From that beginning we can then move to address distributional issues outside of the scope of the Tax Code.

I believe this makes a lot of sense. Strong economic growth is in everyone's best interest, and we have not done a good job communicating that fact to the American people. Too often economic growth is viewed as a barrier to a cleaner environment, or stronger families, or less poverty, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Nearly everyone in society benefits from a more productive economy, especially those on the lower rung of the economic ladder.

The way to help the people at the bottom of the ladder is not to pull down those at the top of the ladder, but to help those at the bottom to get the education and training they need to obtain and keep good jobs.

The estate tax as it currently stands represents a barrier to economic growth, and it behooves us to remedy this situation as quickly as we can by making its repeal permanent.

Mr. President, today I rise to give my complete support for Ambassador Susan Schwab who will become our Nation's Trade Representative.

I have been dismayed that the Senate did not move more quickly on this nomination. I have also been disappointed by the opinions, of some, who state that her nomination is an indication that the administration is deemphasizing trade policy.

Obviously, these individuals do not know Ambassador Schwab.

I, on the other hand, have had that privilege of working with her and join the vast majority of my colleagues in stating that that Ambassador Schwab is a tenacious, forceful, yet thoughtful advocate of our Nation's trade agenda.

Our Nation is at a critical juncture. In 2005, the United States trade deficit widened to a record $726 billion, increasing to 5.8 percent of the Gross Domestic Product from 5.3 percent in 2004, and 4.5 percent in 2003.

Many economists now describe the trade deficit as unsustainable. For example, C. Fred Bergsten, Director of the Institute for International Economics, has pointed out ``the United States must now attract almost $7 billion of capital from the rest of the world every day to finance our current account deficit and our own foreign investment outflows.''

In order to meet these challenges, we need our best and brightest working on solutions. Solutions that ensure that that the Doha Round lives up to its potential, while ensuring that a level playing field is created for American farmers, manufactures and service providers.

Solutions that enable the United States to move expeditiously in our free trade negotiations with Korea and Malaysia thereby providing unfettered access to these markets.

Mr. President, I cannot think of anyone better suited to find these solutions then Ambassador Susan Schwab. I am very pleased that the Senate confirmed her nomination just minutes ago.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, when I first ran for office to represent my folks out in Utah, I announced my candidacy because of my deep love for my country and my State. My appreciation for both has only deepened over the years. Perhaps the most remarkable characteristic of this country--one that, in my opinion, is distinctly American--is our tolerance, our willingness to accommodate the very beliefs of our fellow citizens. After all, our country's motto is E Pluribus Unum--out of many, one.

But we accept these differences because we share so much else. We sometimes forget it around here, but we agree more than we disagree, or at least that is what I hope for. We all believe in the dignity of the human person. We all believe that men and women were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and the Government exists to secure those rights. For us, and for our constituents, this is common sense. The same is not true in many other countries, where these basic ideas are debated by all and rejected by some.

We should remember this heritage of respect when we debate the marriage protection amendment. There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue.

I support this amendment. Marriage and family life are the bedrock of American society--the schoolhouse of American citizenship--and judges should not be altering this fundamental institution.

I understand that some of my colleagues believe we should be debating something that they see as of greater consequence. But for many in this body, and for millions of people throughout the country, including in Utah, no issue is more important. During this debate, we should treat each other fairly, with respect, and with an openness to the good-faith arguments on both sides of this amendment.

There is precedent for this. A few weeks ago, the Senate passed an immigration bill. I voted against it, but I agreed with the sentiments of my colleagues who concluded, after the die was cast, that the Senate had behaved admirably. Tensions ran high, but we had a respectful and serious debate about the issues. We voted amendments up and down. I am not saying I saw any Websters, Clays, or Calhouns on the floor, but our respect for one another's opinions and well-intentioned debate certainly did them proud. This is not to say that I was happy with the final product. Even as a purported compromise, it left so much to be desired that I was compelled to vote against it. Yet, I was encouraged by the process and the respect that we showed for the deeply held opinions of fellow Senators.

Unfortunately, the debate over the marriage amendment seems to be unfolding quite differently. You would not know it from the arguments of the opponents, and you would not know it from the lack of treatment it has received in some news outlets; but this is an important issue to Americans. This might not be a major issue for those who live inside the beltway, but for my neighbors in Salt Lake City, my constituents throughout Utah, and good, decent Americans across the country, this is a critical issue.

This debate is not some sideshow for a small sliver of activist groups. Majorities of Americans across the Nation support the protection of traditional marriage laws. This support is not limited to red or blue American. States in every region of the country have worked in recent years to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage. Forty-five States have either a State constitutional amendment or a statute that preserves traditional marriage laws. Nineteen States have codified the

definition of marriage in their State constitutions. In 2004, 13 States, including Utah, overwhelmingly passed their own constitutional amendments to preserve traditional marriage. I was proud to join the majority of my fellow citizens in supporting the adoption of Utah's measure to protect traditional marriage. Seven more States will vote on their amendments this year.

Yet, for those opposed to this amendment, these constituent concerns are not worth our time. I disagree. Yesterday the distinguished Democratic leader came to the floor--a dear friend of mine--with a laundry list of issues that we could be addressing instead of this amendment. Along with the Democratic whip, he did so again today. Ultimately, I think we are capable of chewing gum and walking at the same time. In 2 days, we will be taking up floor time to debate a bill to create a race-based government for the State of Hawaii. I will not hold my breath waiting for these same folks to argue then that we should be discussing more pressing issues.

I wish those dismissing the importance of this issue would let us look at their phone logs. I know that in my office our phones have been ringing off the hook. Utah is a pretty conservative State, but I don't doubt that other members from across the country are hearing the same thing. The constituents who support this amendment, and others like it in the States, understand something that the sophisticated proponents of same-sex marriage do not--our marriage laws permeate our entire culture and we need to be wary about letting the judiciary foist some untested and, frankly, unwanted social experiment on an entire Nation.

Unless we allow an the American people to decide this issue themselves through the amendment process, it is only a matter of time before some renegade judges take it upon themselves to decide it for the American people.

Yet, some in this body apparently prefer to put their heads in the sand.

They know that this is an important issue. But they are tied in knots. A few weeks ago, Howard Dean, the Chairman of Democratic National Committee was for traditional marriage before he was against it. One day the Democratic Party was for traditional marriage. The next day, efforts to protect traditional marriage were tantamount to discrimination.

The bottom line is that some liberal interest groups are attempting a redefinition of marriage, and they are out there all alone on this issue. Vast majorities of Americans support traditional marriage. But some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so dependent on these activist groups for support that they sometimes feel they cannot go against them. I think this is why we are having a cloture vote, rather than an up- or-down vote on this amendment. At the end of the day, many of the same people who deny the necessity of this amendment do not want to have a vote it on their record.

So, rather than take on the other side's arguments, they avoid the issues and challenge the motives of those who support this amendment. My friends on the other side of the aisle claim that this amendment is discriminatory. My colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, is a good man. But he is out of line to say as he has that a vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple. Over half of his colleagues will vote for cloture on this amendment. Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?

This is Dr. Dean's subtle diagnosis. Democrats are committed to fighting this hateful, divisive amendment and to fighting similarly discriminatory ballot initiatives in states across the country. We strongly oppose any attempt to write discrimination into law--whether it be at the local or state levels or in the United States Constitution.

Never--not once in any State--have the people's popularly elected representatives decided to amend traditional marriage laws to include same-sex couples. When given the chance, they affirm traditional marriage. In Vermont, in California, and in Washington there is statutory language preserving the traditional definition. Are the legislators and citizens who supported these laws engaged in discrimination?

Let me give you another example.

When Nevada considered a State constitutional amendment to preserve traditional marriage, a vast majority of the State's citizens supported the measure. For Nevadans, preserving traditional marriage was not a wedge issue. Divisive issues do not gamer 70 percent of the vote, as it did in 2000.

And so it was no surprise that the State's foremost public servant wholeheartedly supported this effort. Nevadans wanted to amend the State's constitution merely to affirm what has always been the law in Nevada and in the other States--that marriage is between one man and one woman.

That was then.

This is now.

Today, the Democratic Leader, who I count as a friend, has jumped on this bandwagon and said that this amendment would write discrimination into the Constitution.

So he supports unequivocally a State constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage, but he claims that it is discrimination at the national level.

Let me get this straight.

Since the colonies were first settled, traditional marriage has been the norm in this country. It remains so today with the exception of Massachusetts. In recent years the American people have reasserted in State after State their strong desire to maintain traditional marriage laws. So the beliefs of most Americans are discriminatory?

Was it discrimination when members supported their State constitutional amendments to protect traditional marriage?

Was it discrimination when 85 members of this body, including 32 Democrats, voted for DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act?

Was it discrimination when President Bill Clinton signed it?

Is it discrimination for our religious leaders to support traditional marriage?

The Catholic Church opposes same-sex marriage. Does the Pope believe in discrimination?

Seventeen Catholic Bishops and all eight American Cardinals support this amendment. Do they support discrimination? That is what some of my colleagues are suggesting.

Is every parish priest who refuses to marry a same-sex couple engaged in discrimination?

My church supports traditional marriage. So do many other religions that recognize the importance of marriage between a man and a woman.

I do not think that some of my colleagues opposing this amendment have considered the full ramifications of a Federal court decision commanding same-sex marriage on the States. What happens to the tax status of a church that our courts have determined to be engaged in discriminatory conduct that cuts against the public policy of the State? We have seen a preview with the experience of Catholic Charities in Massachusetts. For decades, this noble organization has provided adoption services for hard-to-place children. Yet the State recently presented this organization with the catch-22 of abandoning the church's traditional teaching on human sexuality or abandoning their religious commitment to works of mercy. This is not a choice our churches and religious citizens should face, but it is, I fear, a choice that they will have to make unless we act.

Our history as a nation is dotted with instances of some outlier, activist judges who ignored their institutional limitations in order to replace their own public policy judgments for those of the American people and their representatives. It is hardly a surprise that some elite judges might underestimate the political and social consequences of their efforts to alter the legal framework of marriage. After all, most of the people that they know may be in favor of such changes.

Well, they are about to find out that there are people outside of their small universe of liberal opinion. If a few renegade judges determine that traditional marriage is unconstitutional, our previous political debates over improper judicial decisions will pale by comparison.

The fact remains that some judges are eager to replace the opinions of the American people with their own. Since the cloture vote on the marriage amendment in the 108th Congress, State trial courts in Washington, New

York, California, and Maryland have struck down traditional marriage laws. The marriage laws of Connecticut have been challenged. The laws in Iowa have been challenged. A lawsuit has been filed in Federal court in Oklahoma that challenges not only a State constitutional amendment to preserve traditional marriage, but also the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. The Supreme Court of New Jersey seems poised to overturn the State's traditional marriage laws. A Federal court in Nebraska already struck down the State's constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage. Just a few weeks ago, a judge in Georgia invalidated an amendment passed by the State's voters in 2004.

Those who oppose traditional marriage are not playing by the rules. They are not convincing their fellow citizens of the merits of their cause. They are not taking their arguments to the legislatures. Rather, they are taking the easy way out. Just convince a few elite judges that they are on the side of justice, and traditional marriage laws will go the way of the dinosaurs.

According to this amendment's opponents, when well-funded liberal activist groups ask judges to subvert the will of the people in every State, they are not playing politics. When they ask a bare majority of judges to overturn traditional marriage laws and declare them discriminatory, they are merely seeking justice. Yet when the people's elected representatives attempt to preserve traditional marriage in this country, we are playing politics.

We must be respectful of homosexual citizens. They are our fellow citizens. And they, no less than we, are endowed with the rights that Thomas Jefferson elaborated in the Declaration of Independence. But we also live in a democracy. And in democracies the people get to determine social policy, not judges. We should take this opportunity to restore the authority of the people over public policy and their own constitutions. We should remind these judges that the judiciary does not have a method of reasoning superior to the people or their elected representatives. Judges are good at deciding cases. They are good at applying law. But when it comes to moral reasoning, there is nothing in their legal training or in our laws that gives a few activist judges a right to make wholesale social change at the expense of the traditions of the American people.

I support this amendment. It is merely a congressional affirmation of what the vast majority of citizens in Utah and across the country already believe--marriage should be between one man and one woman.

We have a long way to go, but as even this amendment's opponents know, the fact that legislation will not pass is no reason to avoid a debate. Only by debating can you build a consensus. The American people have already arrived at a consensus on this issue. They want to see traditional marriage remain the law of the land. I agree with that sentiment, and so I will be voting for cloture. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the country, the judiciary, and the Senate have lost a patriot, a great man of character and integrity, a gifted judge, and a trusted friend with the passing last week of U.S. Circuit Judge Edward Becker.

Edward Roy Becker was born on May 4, 1933, in his beloved Philadelphia.

He practiced law there for more than a decade, until President Richard Nixon appointed him to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 1970.

President Ronald Reagan elevated Judge Becker to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1981. The Third Circuit considers appeals from Federal district courts in Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Virgin Islands.

Judge Becker eventually served as the Third Circuit's chief judge for 5 years before taking senior status on his 70th birthday in 2003.

Edward Becker lived for nearly all of his 73 years in his boyhood home in the Frankford section of Philadelphia.

He read legal briefs while riding the train to the courthouse, where he was known for what the New York Times described as a lack of grandiosity rarely found in a Federal court.

With an uncanny ability to play virtually any song by ear on the piano, Judge Becker accompanied Supreme Court Justices at their annual sing-a-longs that the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist hosted for the law clerks.

When part of Independence National Historic Park, which he could see from his chambers window, was closed after the September 11 terrorist attacks, Judge Becker supported the efforts of a citizens' coalition which succeeded in getting the street reopened in 2003.

Judge Becker was not just any Federal judge.

After more than 35 years on the bench, he was certainly a senior member of the Federal judiciary.

But he served not only the cause of justice but also the institution of the judiciary in such capacities as the board of directors of the Federal Judicial Center and the executive committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States.

His many and varied writings covered topics ranging from the federal sentencing guidelines and rules of evidence to the sixth amendment's confrontation clause and even law journal footnotes.

Imagine that, an entire law journal article about law journal footnotes.

Judge Becker made his judicial mark in many ways. Judges write opinions that follow or apply principles established by the Supreme Court. Judge Becker did that as well but also wrote landmark opinions establishing rules or principles that would later be adopted by the Supreme Court.

His 1985 opinion in United States v. Downing, for example, adopted a standard regarding expert witness testimony.

The Supreme Court cited Judge Becker's opinion in Downing when it adopted the same standard 8 years later in its famous Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals decision.

Judge Becker was also known for his knowledge and expertise in handling complex litigation.

He served on the board of editors for the ``Manual for Complex Litigation'' and handled many such cases during his years on the bench.

In 1996, for example, he wrote the opinion in Georgine v. Amchem Products concluding that the factual and legal issues in a lawsuit against asbestos manufacturers were too complex to allow certification of the suit as a class action.

Judge Becker's expertise in the area of complex litigation in general, and asbestos cases in particular, led to his role in our ongoing struggle here in the Senate with the asbestos crisis.

He provided invaluable counsel and assistance to the Judiciary Committee, and his enormous wisdom, credibility, and integrity helped guide many complex discussions and negotiations. Every party to those discussions knew that Judge Becker was a straight shooter, a completely honest broker.

Judge Becker could have considered his a strictly judicial role, limited to handling the cases that came before him, but Judge Becker looked past the walls of his courtroom at the judiciary as an institution, the justice system, and the country. He wanted to see the grand principles of justice and fairness actually work in people's lives.

Judge Becker was not afraid to wade into other choppy waters in the interest of the judicial branch.

Joined by several leading appeals court judges including now- Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Judge Becker sought in 1989 to make some sense out of what had become an almost absurd process for hiring judicial law clerks.

Judges were interviewing students barely finished with their first year of law school. Judge Becker believed that the trend disrupted the studies of law students and demeaned the judiciary's reputation. This was classic Judge Becker. He did not have to tackle such a touchy subject.

Previous efforts to change the law clerk hiring system had failed, and the problem was worse than ever. But he cared so much for the integrity of the judiciary, and for the individuals who served in it, that he tackled it nonetheless. And he did it with the straightforward, no-nonsense, commonsense practicality that characterized everything he did.

Judge Becker both loved and was beloved by his colleagues.

He organized a panel of current and former Third Circuit judges to testify on behalf of their colleague Judge Samuel Alito upon his recent nomination to the Supreme Court. That panel was diverse, opinionated, and completely united in support of their colleague.

Judge Becker and Flora, his wife of nearly 50 years, kept in close touch even with retired colleagues and with colleagues' spouses after they died.

In addition to Flora, Judge Becker is survived by his children--Jon, a teacher in Brooklyn; Susan, a Federal prosecutor in Philadelphia--and Charles, a lawyer in Philadelphia--and several grandchildren.

Our colleague, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, was a close friend of Judge Becker for more than 50 years. He has said that Judge Becker was one of the greatest Philadephians in that great city's history. That is high praise indeed, considering the pantheon of patriots coming from the birthplace of the Constitution.

Judge Becker embodied so much that is great about this country. He cared deeply about principles of fairness and justice. He wanted those principles actually to work. He was both part of a collegial judicial body and a unique individual with his own personality and character.

He would go to baseball games but take legal briefs with him to read.

His colleague, Judge Marjorie Rendell, once described Judge Becker as ``the perfect combination of Mensa and mensch.''

One of the historic preservationists who worked with Judge Becker to reopen the street in front of Independence Hall said of Judge Becker: ``He was one step below the Supreme Court, but he's such an everyday man.''

Proverbs 16:19 offers a maxim that fits Judge Becker to a tee: ``Better it is to be of a humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.''

By his character, personality, and wisdom, Edward Roy Becker made anyone who knew him better for the experience.

The judiciary, the country, and yes, the Senate, are better because this good man walked and worked with us.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my sadness in learning of the passing of our esteemed former colleague from Texas, Senator Lloyd Millard Bentsen, Jr. I am certain that I join all of our colleagues in grieving the loss of this great American, and especially those of us who had the honor to have served in this body with him.

Lloyd Bentsen was a good and a great man, and I had the opportunity to work with him closely many times over the 16 years we served here together. When I joined the Finance Committee in 1991, Senator Bentsen was the chairman. As a new member of the committee, I appreciated the way Chairman Bentsen ran Finance in a bipartisan and fair way that reflected positively on the long and distinguished history of that panel and the spirit of which continues until today.

Many of us knew Senator Bentsen as a man of his word, and as a superb communicator. He was not a man of many words, but when he spoke, people everywhere stopped to listen. He spoke slowly and with great meaning, and he connected with those who heard him, whether they were a group of schoolchildren from Texas, his colleagues from his long years of service in the House and the Senate, the financial markets that listened to his every word as chairman of the Finance Committee and as Secretary of the Treasury, or the world's financial leaders, with whom he consorted as the President's main economic spokesman.

Lloyd Bentsen was a hero, to his family, his constituents, his State, and to his country. As a young man, he served as a combat pilot in the European theater during World War II, and he flew 35 missions in B-24s. Lloyd was awarded the Air Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters and the Distinguished Flying Cross. By the time he left military service, was promoted to a full colonel in the Air Force Reserve.

Lloyd Bentsen's natural leadership ability was evident early in life. As a young man he earned the rank of Eagle Scout, and he graduated from the University of Texas Law School by the time he was 21 years old. He then joined the Army Air Corps and rose from a private to the rank of major and was given command of a squadron of

600 men at the age of 23. Our friend and colleague was truly a remarkable man.

After serving our country so valiantly during the war, Lloyd returned to his native Rio Grand Valley in Texas where he became a county judge and then ran successfully for the House, where he served for three terms. In 1955, he decided to leave public service temporarily and began an impressive career in business and finance in Houston, which ended in 1970 when he decided to run for the Senate.

Mr. President, Lloyd Bentsen was one of the modern giants of the Senate. Of course, I did not always agree with him, or him me. However, I respected him. He was respected on both sides of the aisle, and by all who came to know him.

Many words come to my mind when I think of Senator Bentsen. He was bright. He was fair. He was serious. He was dedicated. He was dignified. The State of Texas and all America have lost a great son.

My heart goes out to Lloyd's wife, Beryl, and to their children, grandchildren and other family members. May they find peace and joy in their memories and in knowing of the great contribution Lloyd gave to his country.

Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to Leonidas Ralph Mecham, who recently retired after more than 20 years as Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. As that agency's longest-serving Director, Ralph ably guided the judiciary through some turbulent and challenging times, and for such he deserves the praise and commendation of this body.

Ralph Mecham was born on April 23, 1928, in Murray, UT. He earned a bachelor's degree with highest honors from the University of Utah, a law degree from George Washington University, and a master's degree in public administration from Harvard University. Ralph's first stint here in Washington began more than 50 years ago, when he served as a legislative assistant and administrative assistant to Senator Wallace Bennett of Utah, the father of our colleague Senator Bob Bennett. Ralph returned to our State to serve as vice president of his alma mater, the University of Utah, where he also taught constitutional law and was responsible for creating the University of Utah Research Park.

Ralph could not stay away from Washington and returned to serve as Special Assistant to the Secretary of Commerce. In July 1985, Chief Justice Warren Burger appointed him Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The Administrative Office provides internal administrative support to the judicial branch and communicates on behalf of the judiciary with Congress, the executive branch, and the public.

Ralph served in this capacity during a particularly challenging time for the judiciary. Providing effective judicial administration in the face of budgetary constraints is difficult when the Federal judiciary's caseload continues its upward spiral. Cases filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals, for example, more than doubled during Ralph's time as Director. The number of bankruptcy cases skyrocketed from 365,000 to over 1,780,000 in that same period. In addition, national tragedies such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, as well as catastrophes such as Hurricane Katrina, created their own unique challenges to the continued functioning of the judiciary. Ralph met each challenge effectively. His extensive background in public administration and experience in both the legislative and executive branches served him well in equipping the judicial branch for its critical tasks even through these challenges and troubled times.

Ralph also helped guide the judicial branch through a period of increased public attention and even criticism regarding judicial decisions. Protecting judicial independence while also enhancing public understanding of the function of judges in our system of government is just the kind of balancing act Ralph was prepared to tackle. He did so effectively with a steady hand.

The Director of the Administrative Office serves as secretary of the Judicial Conference and as a member of its executive committee. The judges who chaired the executive committee during Ralph's tenure also have praised his work.

The current executive committee chairman, U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan, says that ``[w]atching Ralph operate is like watching a master conductor guide the philharmonic orchestra through a complicated Bach symphony.'' If only this could be said of us Senators and our work on our committees or on this floor.

Judge Carolyn Dineen King, Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit, chaired the executive committee from 2002 to 2005. In tackling a wide range of problems, she says, ``Director Mecham exhibited his usual inventiveness, intensity, tenacity, and judgment and his remarkable ability to inspire others . . . to do the very best they were capable of.''

Judge Wilfred Feinberg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit chaired the executive committee from 1987 to 1989. He has said that ``Ralph handled this difficult job with confidence, competence and dedication. It is a testament to his hard work and dedication that today the federal courts to a large extent so successfully manage their own resources and operations.''

Judge Ralph K. Winter, also a former Chief Judge of the Second Circuit, chaired the executive committee a decade later, from 1999 to 2000. He believed that Ralph showed ``a remarkable capacity for keeping the long view in mind while putting out the short-term fires that would relentlessly pop up in various directions.''

Perhaps the best applause for Ralph Mecham's leadership comes from Sixth Circuit Judge Gilbert Merritt, who chaired the executive committee from 1994 to 1996. ``The judiciary is in much better shape administratively than it was 20 years ago.'' Whether in our families, our communities, or our work, we should each strive to leave those in our charge better off than we found them.

I was pleased to hear that Ralph recently received the 2006 National Public Service Award in recognition of his excellence in a half-century of public service. The award announcement noted his support for the Judicial Conference by providing high-quality services to judges and the courts, and by building relationships both inside and outside the judiciary.

Ralph Mecham has been married to the former Barbara Folsom for more than 55 years. With 5 children and 14 grandchildren, he is a devoted family man. Ralph has served in various positions in church and community, including time as a missionary in Great Britain, chairman of the Utah State Heart Association, chairman of the Salt Lake County Cancer Association, and chairman of the University of Utah National Advisory Council. His commitment to the community and to his church continues.

The judicial branch and the country are better because of Ralph's service. I want to commend him for his commitment and for setting a good example of public service. His record tells me that, even in supposed retirement, Ralph Mecham will continue helping and serving those around him.

Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the conferees for successfully concluding the negotiations and giving us a tax reconciliation bill that I believe fixes glaring problems that would otherwise punish millions of American families. The provisions in the conference report before us today will also help to perpetuate the strong growth our economy has experienced over the last 3 years that has created millions of jobs for Americans. I want to exhort my colleagues to give their support to the conferees' efforts and vote for the passage of this conference report.

One major problem the conference report addresses is the fact that the alternative minimum tax is due to hit tens of millions of American households this year had it not been temporarily fixed. The ``fix'' provided in the bill before us is by necessity only a 1 year ``Band- Aid,'' so our tax writers will have to address this issue once again next year. Without this provision over 18 million households would unexpectedly find themselves bereft of deductions and facing a higher tax bill.

The alternative minimum tax is Exhibit A for the law of unintended consequences in the tax world. Originally created as a response to news reports that a few millionaires were using available deductions to not pay any taxes at all, this provision, which is essentially a parallel tax system to our ``normal'' tax system, is on pace to snare tens of millions of households in just a few years unless repealed or reformed permanently. It is only the projection of major revenues from this tax that keeps us from discarding it completely.

The alternative minimum tax is an especially pernicious tax for Utahns, as it unduly burdens large families by disallowing the exemptions for dependent children. A family of six earning $90,000 a year pays enough taxes as it is without us taking away their exemptions.

While the fix of the alternative minimum tax is welcome, I believe the most important provision in the reconciliation bill is the extension of the lower tax rate on dividends and capital gains to 2010. This provision has proven to be a boon for economic growth since it was added to the code in 2003.

The revenue cost of this lower rate has been very slight we collected more tax revenue from dividends and capital gains last year than we did in 2002, the year before we reduced the tax rate. In fact, total Federal revenue growth has been simply tremendous the past 2 years as the economy has taken off. Revenue grew more than 14.5 percent last year and is growing at more than 11 percent this fiscal year, well above the predictions made by CBO.

The benefits of the lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains has been higher economic growth. The way it works is simple: a lower tax on investment income means that investors get a higher return from their investments, thus spurring them to save more. Greater savings means that firms find there is more money available for them to use to increase production and improve the productivity of their workers, both of which ultimately lead to an increase in economic growth.

Moreover, the money invested is used more effectively with a lower tax on capital gains. Capital is not locked up in long-term investments held in order to avoid paying the tax. As a result, capital flows to the most productive investments, and economic growth is maximized. A vibrant, dynamic economy benefits from flexibility, both in the labor market and the capital market. Our 4.7 percent unemployment rate and 2 million jobs created in the past year, on top of a total of 5.2 million new jobs created since August of 2003, testify to the strength of our labor market. The $52 trillion of net wealth in this country, which increased by 8 percent last year, is a manifestation of the strength of our capital market. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is also nearing its all-time high, in no small part due to the tax policies of this country.

The benefits of economic growth are in ample abundance in Utah, where the current unemployment rate is just 3.4 percent, while wages increased last year by nearly 4 percent.

I am also pleased to see the extension of the small business expensing provision, which has been very important to business investment in this country. Another important provision included in the conference report is the 2-year extension of the active financing exemption under subpart F, which allows many of our U.S.-based multinational firms to remain competitive with their foreign counterparts.

We need to remember that taxes are only a means to an end. Ultimately, a primary goal of the government needs to be to ensure the continued prosperity of its citizens, and our Tax Code

should be constructed with that purpose in mind. Our Tax Code is by no means perfect; and I could litter this discussion with references to the hundreds of exceptions, exemptions, credits, ill-advised deductions, dubious penalties, and needless complexities that should not be in there. But fixing the myriad imperfections of the tax code is a task for a later Congress and was not the assignment of the conference committee. What they did accomplish was figure out a way for us to keep a provision that has been a boon to our economy for another 2 years. I fervently hope that by the time this provision is next due to expire, or even before then, that my colleagues can see how important it is to have a Tax Code that encourages saving and investment. A lower tax rate on dividends and capital gains is a modest step towards that goal, and one that has cost us little or no revenue in return.

At a time of growing prosperity, it is important to continue with the policies that have contributed to that prosperity, and that is exactly what this bill has done. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished chairman who I think has done a terrific job on this bill. I understand the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire needs about 3 minutes, so I ask unanimous consent that he be given 3 minutes, and then the time be returned to me.

Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1955, the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act. This is a good bill, with good intentions. The lack of health insurance, particularly for employees of small businesses, is a significant problem in Utah and throughout the Nation.

We cannot afford to sit by the sidelines and bemoan this problem, taking little action while millions of American families suffer. The House of Representatives has acted and we should do the same.

Immediately upon its passage though, we were besieged by complaints about House legislation, principal among them the complaint that it overrides State insurance law.

I give the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Mike Enzi a lot of credit.

Chairman Enzi didn't sit idly by.

He studied the House bill, he held extensive hearings, and then he drafted a compromise that resolved many of the concerns expressed about the House bill. This was no easy job.

Immediately, the HELP Committee effort--a solid effort I might add-- was besieged by criticism. Much of this criticism I must hasten to add, is not valid.

``It isn't going to cover cancer care,'' the naysayers decry.

``It isn't going to cover diabetics and their supplies,'' they allege.

``It isn't going to cover prenatal care or OB/GYN care for women,'' is a recent complaint.

``It is going to run chiropractors, podiatrists and optometrists out of business,'' say hundreds of form letters that have flooded our offices.

The problem is, these complaints aren't even true. While the standard plan employees must be offered under this bill may not cover all those things, S. 1955 clearly provides an alternative. Employees must be offered an enhanced plan, based on the coverage that public employees receive in the five most populous States, if their employer's standard plan is not consistent with State law.

Most, if not all, of these services would be included in those enhanced plans that employers must offer under S. 1955.

But, let's talk about our basic goal here.

We want to provide affordable health insurance coverage to those who currently do not have coverage.

If we could afford to give them coverage for every possible illness, condition, or procedure, if small businesses could afford to give them coverage for every possible illness, condition or procedure, don't you think it would have been done by now?

Of course it would.

That is the genius of the Enzi bill. It allows a basic level of coverage--perhaps not every single service imaginable, but good solid health care insurance--and for those who want to pay more, there is a plan with more coverage.

In that way, the millions of Americans without health insurance will have access to coverage.

You may ask yourself, ``Who doesn't have health insurance coverage?''

Today, over 45 million Americans do not have health insurance.

Over 25 percent of self-employed individuals are uninsured.

Over 30 percent of people who work for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees are uninsured.

Over 20 percent of the people who work for small businesses with fewer than 100 employees are uninsured.

Something clearly needs to be done.

And that's why we are here, today, debating S. 1955.

I want to illustrate why passage of this legislation is necessary.

Ramona Rudert and her husband, Michael, have owned Professional Automotive Equipment in North Salt Lake for 28 years. They have 12 employees and they offer health insurance to them.

The Ruderts contribute $200 per month to their employees' health care premiums.

Their employees have to pay approximately $500 per month for family coverage.

Their health insurance plan has a $1000 deductible.

So at least there is potential coverage. But here's the kicker: only one of Professional Automotive Equipment's 12 employees decided to be covered by their company's health policy, besides the Rudert family. The rest of their employees cannot afford it.

The interesting twist about this story is that Ramona and Michael have a daughter with juvenile diabetes. They recognize that the basic plan may not cover all the services their daughter needs.

But when asked why she supports S. 1955, Mrs. Rudert replied that she is ``always looking for ways to improve her employees' access to health care'' and that while she has a daughter with Type 1 diabetes, her greatest concern is about the affordability of insurance premiums for her employees.''

Passage of this bill is the top priority for Mr. and Mrs. Rudert, and thousands of Utah businesses. They recognize that affordability is a key component to making that happen.

Let us not make perfect the enemy of the good.

It is an economic fact of life that a Federal requirement for small businesses to cover every small business employee for every possible health care-related service is neither appropriate nor affordable.

Those who decry this bill because it does not guarantee small business employees a comprehensive plan, must be reminded that most employees of small businesses do not have a choice today, if they are fortunate to have health insurance coverage. The legislation before the Senate will create new options for small businesses and, the potential for more choices.

Today, smaller employers do not have the purchasing power of larger employers. If they offer different types of health plans to their employees, the administrative costs of offering these choices are much higher for small employers.

But by leveraging their combined purchasing power, some local small business associations are offering plans that give employers more choice. I believe that similar models could be created regionally and nationally through S. 1955 through regional and national associations.

The goals of S. 1955 are simple. We want to create more affordable health insurance options through choice and competition.

And we want to end the decades-long deadlock and give real relief to America's small businesses and working families.

Who can argue with that?

And small businesses support the freedom to band together across state lines, even without self-funding. Insurance companies support the creation of a level playing field with Small Business Health Plans.

Most important, according to a Mercer study released on March 7, 2006, it is predicted that costs will go down 12 percent for small employers and coverage of the working uninsured will go up 8 percent, approximately 1 million more working Americans.

An added benefit is that the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, believes that passage of S. 1955 will reduce net spending in the Medicaid Program. This is due to the enrollment in employer-sponsored insurance plans of people, who under current law, would be covered by Medicaid.

CBO estimates that enacting S. 1955 would reduce direct spending for the Federal share of Medicaid expenditures by $235 million over the 2007-2011 period and $790 million over the 2007-2016 period. In addition, the bill would result in estimated Medicaid savings to States totaling $180 million over the 2007-2011 period and $600 million over the 2007-2016 period.

CBO estimates that by 2011, approximately 600,000 more people would have health insurance coverage. The majority of these newly covered individuals would be employees of small companies and their dependents.

S. 1955 has been endorsed by a host of organizations: The Small- Business Health Plan Coalition; the National Association of Realtors; the Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business; the National Restaurant Association; the National Association of Manufacturers; the Associated Builders and Contractors; the National Association of Home Builders; the National Retail Federation; the Association Healthcare Coalition; the Textile Rental Services Association of America; the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association; the Precision Metalforming Association; the American Council of Engineering Council; Women Impacting Public Policy; National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors; Wendy's International which includes Tim Hortons, Wendy's, Baja Fresh and Cafe Express; Cendant Corporation; American Institute of Architects; Federation of American Hospitals; National Funeral Directors Association; HR Policy Association; Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association; and the Society of American Florists.

Mr. President, that is an impressive list of supporters.

And I believe that the main reason that we have such an impressive list is due to the leadership of the Chairman Mike Enzi.

He and his staff did something that the Senate has not been able to do for

over a decade report small business health legislation out of the Senate HELP Committee.

For months, Chairman Enzi spearheaded meetings with the major stakeholders of this legislation the insurance companies, the small business groups, and the insurance commissioners. These meetings produced the bill that we are considering today.

Again, my colleagues may ask themselves, is this bill really needed? Will it truly make a difference?

Just last week a 42-year-old woman from Provo, Utah called my office. Both she and her 9-year-old daughter are diabetics. And she had heard from the American Diabetes Association that S. 1955 would hurt their health coverage.

But as my staff explained the bill's important role in allowing small businesses to provide insurance for their employees, including diabetics, she became very emotional. She recalled how, several years ago, she had her own small business. And buying health care for her employees was forcing her toward bankruptcy. So my constituent had to take away their health insurance. This was extremely difficult for her because she herself had a chronic illness and fully understood the implications. She ended up with an individual health insurance policy. And she found that for the same insurance coverage that she had had in her group insurance policy, she had to pay nearly twice as much.

This happened for two reasons. First, as an individual, she was not eligible for the tax benefit that supports the cost of insurance paid through employers. And, second--because she had diabetes, a chronic illness, her insurance rating caused her to pay significantly more than someone without that disease. There was no risk pool for her to join.

Passage of S. 1955 could have prevented these problems.

I urge my colleagues to think about the health care needs of small business employees in their states before voting on this legislation. This legislation will improve their health care options. Today, they rarely have options when it comes to health insurance and when they do, it is extremely expensive.

Let me conclude by sharing the sentiments of Chris Kyler, the CEO of the Utah Association of Realtors.

Small business owners in Utah are facing a growing crisis

with health care availability and affordability. Our

profession represents 17% of Utah's gross state product and

yet we're arguably the most uninsured working segment in our

state simply because we're small business people. As

productive contributors to the economy, as a younger,

healthier populous, we're supportive of S. 1955 because it

will provide us with the opportunity to purchase affordable

health insurance.

I believe that Mr. Kyler's sentiments sum up why the Senate needs to pass this legislation as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that employees of small business will have access to affordable health care.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I share the frustration of the distinguished Senator from Iowa about stem cell research, but I do believe the majority leader is committed to bringing it up, and I expect him to do that, I hope, within the near future.

But today I rise to speak in support of S. 22, the Medical Care Access and Protection Act of 2006, and S. 23, the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act. I am a proud cosponsor of both bills.

These bills address the medical liability and litigation crisis in our country, a crisis that is preventing patients from receiving high- quality health care or, in some cases, any care at all because doctors are being driven out of practice. This crisis is limiting or denying access to vital medical care and needlessly increasing the cost of care for every American.

This issue is much more difficult to assess than just studying physicians who leave practice. The more important issue is how physicians are changing their mode of practice and financial structure in response to increasing costs from medical malpractice insurance premiums.

As many know, this crisis began when obstetrician/gynecologists started getting out of the obstetric care business. Unfortunately, it has now progressed to almost all medical specialties, limiting high- risk/low-return activities, such as emergency room coverage, to limit exposure. Just last week, the RAND Corporation reported that over 70 percent of emergency rooms in this country do not have adequate physician staffing. And who ends up suffering the most as a result? Well, the patient does.

In a city such as Salt Lake, where there are academic medical centers, this results in patient cases shifting from lower cost community hospitals to the higher cost settings.

The chief operating officer of our University of Utah Hospital was in my office recently to discuss the impact of this problem on the financial stability of the hospital. He told us it is becoming increasingly difficult for his hospital to provide care to the poor and uninsured.

On the financial side, we are seeing physicians' practices modifying their financial structure and, in some cases, taking advantage of the fact that there is growing demand and diminishing supply in the physician world. Primary care physicians are creating upfront fees for services which also allow for reduced practice size. The bottom line is, lacking a different strategy for reimbursement and/or practice costs--a good part of which is driven by malpractice insurance--we are driving private physicians away from traditional settings. Instead, we are creating a trend that adversely affects physician access and supply and increases costs in other sectors of the health care environment.

The Utah Hospital Association president tells me that a major hospital system in Utah saw its malpractice premiums increase 300 percent in the last 10 years, while at the same time being continually recognized nationally for its outstanding clinical practice.

The time to act is now. This crisis is jeopardizing access to health care for many Americans. The medical liability crisis also is inhibiting efforts to improve patient safety and stifling medical innovation. Excessive litigation is adding billions of dollars in increased costs and reducing access to high-quality health care.

I am really deeply concerned that we are needlessly compromising patient safety and quality health care. We know that about 4 percent of hospitalizations involve an adverse event and 1 percent of hospitalizations involve an injury that would be considered negligent in court.

These numbers have been consistent in large studies conducted in my home State of Utah, New York, California, and Colorado, just to mention 4 States. However, the equally troubling statistic is that few cases with actual negligent injuries result in claims and less than one- fifth--that is 17 percent--of claims filed actually involve a negligent injury.

This situation has been likened to a traffic cop who regularly gives out more tickets to drivers who go through green lights than to those who run through red lights. Clearly, nobody would defend that method of ensuring traffic safety. And we should not accept such an inefficient and inequitable method of ensuring patient safety. These numbers are a searing indictment of the current medical liability system.

I believe we can do better for the American people. The two bills before us are important steps in that path.

The problem is particularly acute for women who need obstetrical and gynecological care because OB/GYN is among the top three specialties with the highest professional liability insurance premiums. This has led to many leaving their practices, thus resulting in a shortage of doctors in many States, including my home State of Utah.

Studies by both the Utah Medical Association and the Utah Chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, often called ACOG, underscore the problem in my State. Over half--50.5 percent--of Utah family practitioners have already given up obstetrical services or never even begun the practice of obstetrics at all.

Of the remaining 49.5 percent who still deliver babies, 32.7 percent say they plan to stop providing obstetric services within the next decade. Most plan to stop within the next 5 years.

An ACOG survey revealed that over half--53.16 percent--of OB/GYNs in Utah have changed their practice. They are retiring, relocating, or dropping obstetrics because of the medical liability reform crisis. This change in practice leaves 1,458 pregnant Utahns without OB/GYN care.

The medical liability crisis, while affecting all medical specialties and practices, hits OB/GYN practices especially hard. Astonishingly, three-quarters--76.5 percent--of obstetrician/gynecologists report being sued at least once in their career. Indeed, over one-fourth of OB/GYN doctors will be sued for care given during their residency. These numbers have discouraged Americans finishing medical school from choosing this vital specialty. I know this is the case in my home State of Utah.

Currently, one-third of OB/GYN residency slots are filled by foreign medical graduates, compared to only 14 percent one decade ago. That is one-third to 14 percent. OB/GYN doctors are particularly vulnerable to unjustified lawsuits because of the tendency to blame the doctor for brain-injured infants, although research has proven that physician error is responsible for less than 4 percent of all neurologically impaired babies.

Ensuring the availability of high-quality prenatal and delivery care for pregnant women and their babies--the most vulnerable members of our society--is imperative. We need to pass this legislation.

An August 2003 GAO report concluded that States that have enacted tort reform laws with caps on noneconomic damages have slower growth rates in medical malpractice premiums and claims payments. From 2001 to 2002, the average premiums for medical malpractice insurance increased about 10

percent in States with caps on noneconomic damages. In comparison, States with more limited reforms experienced an increase of 29 percent in medical malpractice premiums. Overall, the situation has gotten worse. In 2004, malpractice insurance costs increased 55 percent; in 2005, 34 percent; and in 2006, 18 percent. That is 107 percent in just 3 years. Now, under anybody's measure, that is an unfair cost for physicians to bear for a system that does not achieve the goal of either rewarding the most injured patients or improving the safety and quality of health care.

Medical liability litigation directly and dramatically increases health care costs for all Americans. In addition, skyrocketing medical litigation costs indirectly increase health care costs by changing the way doctors practice medicine.

Defensive medicine is defined as medical care that is primarily or solely motivated by fear of malpractice claims and not by the patient's medical condition. According to a survey of 1,800 doctors published in the journal, Medical Economics, more than three-quarters of doctors believed they must practice defensive medicine. A study of defensive medicine conducted by the current director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Mark McClellan, before he took office used national health expenditure data and showed that medical liability reform had the potential to reduce defensive medicine expenditures by $69 billion to $124 billion in 2001, an amount that is between 3.2 and 5.8 times the amount of malpractice premiums. That amount would be significantly greater today

The financial toll of defensive medicine is great and especially significant for reform purposes as it does not produce any positive health benefits. Not only does defensive medicine increase health care costs, it also puts Americans at avoidable risk.

Now, there is good defensive medicine and there is bad defensive medicine. But the vast majority of defensive medicine is extra defenses in order to have the history of the patient show the doctor did everything in his power. Frankly, that leads to more and increased costs every time the doctor has to do extraordinary analyses just to make sure his history has everything he possibly can think of in it, even though that is very seldom necessary.

Nearly every test and every treatment has possible side effects. Thus, every unnecessary test, procedure, and treatment potentially puts a patient in harm's way. Seventy-six percent of physicians are concerned that malpractice litigation has hurt their ability to provide quality care to patients.

What can we do to address this crisis? The answer is plenty. And there are excellent examples of what works.

HHS has reported how reasonable reforms in some States have reduced health care costs and improved access to and quality of care. More specifically, in States with limits of $250,000 to $350,000 on noneconomic damages, premiums have increased at an average of just 18 percent compared to 45 percent in States without such limits.

California enacted the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, also known as MICRA, more than a quarter century ago. MICRA slowed the rate of increase in medical liability premiums dramatically without affecting negatively the quality of health care received by the State's residents. As a result, doctors are not leaving California.

Furthermore, between 1976 and 2000, premiums increased by 167 percent in California while they increased three times as much--505 percent--in the rest of the country. Consequently, Californians were saved billions of dollars in health care costs and Federal taxpayers were saved billions of dollars in the Medicare and Medicaid Programs.

Before coming to Congress, I litigated several medical liability cases as a defense lawyer. I have seen heart-wrenching cases in which mistakes were made. But, more often, I have seen heart-wrenching cases in which mistakes were not made and doctors were forced to expend valuable time and resources defending themselves against frivolous lawsuits. And the vast majority of these suits are frivolous.

An Institute of Medicine report, ``To Err Is Human,'' concluded that ``the majority of medical errors do not result from individual recklessness or the actions of a particular group--this is not a `bad apple' problem. More commonly, errors are caused by faulty systems, processes, and conditions that lead people to make mistakes or fail to prevent them.''

We need reform to improve the health care systems and processes that allow errors to occur and to identify better when malpractice has not occurred.

The reform that I envision would address litigation abuses in order to provide swift and appropriate compensation for malpractice victims, redress for serious problems, and ensure that medical liability costs do not prevent patients from accessing the care they need.

So we need to move ahead with legislation to improve patient safety and reduce medical errors.

Without tort reform, juries are awarding astounding and unreasonable sums for pain and suffering. A sizable portion of those awards goes to the attorney rather than the patient. The result is that doctors cannot get insurance and patients cannot get the care they need.

All Americans deserve the access to care, the cost savings, and the legal protections that States like California and Texas provide their residents. Today's bills will allow us to begin to address this crisis in our health care system, give our citizens, especially women and their babies, access to OB/GYN doctors, and enable physicians to provide high-quality, cost-effective medical care.

So I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to support cloture on the motion to proceed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, due to the untimely loss of my beloved sister, Marilyn ``Nubs'' Hatch Kuch, I have been necessarily absent for a portion of the debate and votes on Wednesday, May 3 and Thursday, May 4, 2006.

Concerning the votes I missed, if I were present I would have voted as follows: nay for amendment No. 3616, striking funding to States based on their production of certain types of crops, livestock and/or dairy products; nay for amendment No. 3673, providing funds for assessments of critical reservoirs and dams in the State of Hawaii; nay for amendment No. 3601, allocating $1,000,000 for the monitoring of waters off the coast of the State of Hawaii; yea for amendment No. 3704, allocating $20,000,000 from the AmeriCorps program to the Veterans Health Administration for medical facilities; yea for final passage of H.R. 4939, the Fiscal Year 2006 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery; yea for Executive Calendar No. 617, the nomination of Brian M. Cogan of New York to be the U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York; and yea for Executive Calendar No. 618, the nomination of Thomas M. Golden of Pennsylvania to be the U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. None of these votes would have changed the final outcome.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would restore balance to a system that disadvantages education funding in the West. The Action Plan for Public Land and Education Act of 2006 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to grant Federal land to western States where large proportions of public land hamper the States ability to raise funding for public education. This is a product of the hard work and creativity of Representative Rob Bishop, and I am working with him on this important effort.

Many of my colleagues may not know this, but 10 of the top 12 States with the largest student-teacher ratios are in the West. These States also have the lowest growth in per-pupil expenditures, and their enrollment growth is projected to increase dramatically.

The West's education funding deficit is not due to lack of commitment or effort by the States. The fact is that Western States allocate as great a percentage of their budgets to public education as the rest of the Nation. Moreover, Western States pay on average 11.1 percent of their personal incomes to State and local taxes, whereas citizens of the remaining States pay 10.9 percent of their incomes to these same State and local taxes.

The funding discrepancy for education in the West is due in large part to the lack of a sales tax base, which can only be generated on private land. On average, the Federal Government owns 52 percent of the land located in the 13 Western States, while the remaining States average just 4 percent Federal land. Sales tax is not collected on Federal land, and as we know, public education is funded largely through sales taxes.

We all know, the school trust lands that are available to these States are not sufficient to make up the education shortfall in the West. This legislation would remedy that by granting public land States 5 percent of federally-owned land within the State boundaries. The land would be held in trust to be sold or leased, and the proceeds used strictly for the support of public education.

Again, I thank Representative Bishop for his excellent work on this bill. My colleagues and I know of the need to address the West's education funding problem. The Action Plan for Public Land and Education Act of 2006 is a solution to this problem, and I urge my colleagues to lend their support for this important proposal.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would restore balance to a system that disadvantages education funding in the West. The Action Plan for Public Land and Education Act of 2006 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to grant Federal land to western States where large proportions of public land hamper the States ability to raise funding for public education. This is a product of the hard work and creativity of Representative Rob Bishop, and I am working with him on this important effort.

Many of my colleagues may not know this, but 10 of the top 12 States with the largest student-teacher ratios are in the West. These States also have the lowest growth in per-pupil expenditures, and their enrollment growth is projected to increase dramatically.

The West's education funding deficit is not due to lack of commitment or effort by the States. The fact is that Western States allocate as great a percentage of their budgets to public education as the rest of the Nation. Moreover, Western States pay on average 11.1 percent of their personal incomes to State and local taxes, whereas citizens of the remaining States pay 10.9 percent of their incomes to these same State and local taxes.

The funding discrepancy for education in the West is due in large part to the lack of a sales tax base, which can only be generated on private land. On average, the Federal Government owns 52 percent of the land located in the 13 Western States, while the remaining States average just 4 percent Federal land. Sales tax is not collected on Federal land, and as we know, public education is funded largely through sales taxes.

We all know, the school trust lands that are available to these States are not sufficient to make up the education shortfall in the West. This legislation would remedy that by granting public land States 5 percent of federally-owned land within the State boundaries. The land would be held in trust to be sold or leased, and the proceeds used strictly for the support of public education.

Again, I thank Representative Bishop for his excellent work on this bill. My colleagues and I know of the need to address the West's education funding problem. The Action Plan for Public Land and Education Act of 2006 is a solution to this problem, and I urge my colleagues to lend their support for this important proposal.

Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did not make at least a short statement on the budget we just passed. I agree with those who believe that government is simply out of control. We just passed a budget that promises a budget deficit in the vicinity of $400 billion, a truly staggering amount of money. Our Federal Government is borrowing in excess of a billion dollars a day to fund the awesome amount of obligations that we have authorized. While I would have preferred

a vastly smaller budget today, I know it is simply not politically feasible to do so at this time. I pledge to work toward creating an environment where we can achieve responsible spending and fiscal sanity while meeting our obligations. The budget we have just passed does represent a step, albeit a small one, toward fiscal responsibility. Getting our entitlement spending under control, reining in earmarks and other wasteful discretionary spending, and maintaining the conditions necessary for strong, stable economic growth are all necessary to achieve a balanced budget, and it will take the concerted efforts of each and every one of us to achieve this in the future.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and pay tribute to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir in recognition of their 4,000th broadcast of ``Music and the Spoken Word.'' This is the longest continuous broadcast on network radio and television in the history of our country.

``Music and the Spoken Word'' first aired on July 15, 1929, using a single microphone for the organ, choir, and announcer. The first signal was given to the announcer and he began: ``From the crossroads of the West, we welcome you to a program of inspirational music and spoken word.'' Now more than 75 years and 4,000 broadcasts later, those same words are spoken each week to start the broadcast on more than 2,000 radio and television stations and cable systems.

``Music and the Spoken Word'' is the hallmark program of a choir that had very humble beginnings. The choir first began practicing and performing in an adobe building. It was accompanied by an organ that was shipped from Australia to California and then pulled by 12 mules across rugged terrain to Salt Lake City. This choir has definitely come a long way.

The list of accomplishments and honors the choir has accumulated is legendary and well deserving including Grammy and Emmy Awards, five gold records and two platinum records, induction into the National Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame, two Freedom Foundation Awards, and the National Medal of Arts. In addition, the choir has performed in 28 countries and 71 foreign cities for millions of people.

The choir is truly ``America's choir'' as so aptly described by President Ronald Reagan. Members have sung for every President of the United States beginning with President William Howard Taft. The choir has also performed at several Presidential inaugurations, including that of our current President George W. Bush, and in arenas and concert halls throughout America. The choir first made history when it participated in an experiment with Dr. Harvey Fletcher of Bell Telephone Laboratories in the first recording of his newly developed stereophonic, or multiple-track process. This was later demonstrated in 1940 at Carnegie Hall.

The Mormon Tabernacle Choir is comprised of 360 singers who are accompanied by an orchestra of 110 musicians--all volunteers. Choir members come from all walks of life and range in age from 25 to 60. They practice and perform weekly, and all share a love for music, faith, and service. The perfect blending of magical voices with the accompaniment of supremely talented musicians has provided inspiration and solace to millions and left a lasting imprint on souls throughout the globe. Choir members willingly give of their time and talents each week to brighten the lives of others.

Perhaps the most popular and requested song of the choir is its rendition of ``The Battle Hymn of the Republic.'' The choir first recorded this in 1959 with the Philadelphia Orchestra and received a Grammy Award for its performance. You cannot listen to the choir sing this powerful song without feeling to the depth of your soul its majesty and power. It has stirred feelings of patriotism and love for America among audience members in every corner of our nation.

As you can see, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir is an extraordinary organization. Its members are wonderful Americans who voluntarily share their talents for the betterment of our society. Sir Thomas Beecham once said, ``Great music is that which penetrates the ear with facility and leaves the memory with difficulty. Magical music never leaves the memory.'' I truly believe this choir has been creating magical music that will leave a lasting imprint on the fabric of America forever. I congratulate all of the staff, directors, and members of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir once again on their 4,000th broadcast and wish them continued success and majesty for many more years. May God bless the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

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

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need.

In more than 4 years since the September 11, 2001, attack on the United States, the PATRIOT Act has helped to protect our homeland from subsequent terrorist attack. Reauthorizing this effective piece of legislation is an important victory in the

continued war on terror. The PATRIOT Act safeguards freedoms of American citizens while aggressively curtailing the opportunities terrorists have to strike. We have added many provisions designed to ensure that our civil liberties remain unaffected despite the fact that civil libertarians were completely unable to point to one incident or provide any example of abuses under the original PATRIOT Act.

As everybody knows, that act was negotiated in the Judiciary Committee when I was chairman, and I had a lot to do with it, along with Senator Leahy and others. We found that the original PATRIOT Act functioned very well in the protection of our country.

The PATRIOT Act has enjoyed robust public support in Utah since its inception. According to Dan Jones and Associates, our leading pollster in Utah, every time the firm has polled Utahns in the last 4 years, 60 percent or more have voiced approval of the antiterrorism measure. A poll of U.S. citizens reported that more than 60 percent of Americans believed that the Government should do more to protect this country from attack. Reauthorizing this act is definitely the right thing to do for our country at a time when we tend to forget that there are people and governments out there and in here that are committed to wiping the United States of America off the face of the Earth. I, for one, will stand up and say: Not on my watch.

We have held hearing after hearing listening to all sides' robust debate about how to change the PATRIOT Act. We have had some ridiculous suggestions, we have had some good suggestions, and we have had some that we have had to take on this bill that really are not very good. My prayer is that the terrorists will be foiled by our intelligence and law enforcement agencies before another attack. But we have to give those agencies the tools to do that. I have a lot of faith in the ability of law enforcement men and women to do the job effectively. My hope is that those who have agreed that we can take away some of the tools afforded these men and women are wrong, that we can prevent another attack and reduce the ability of law enforcement to prevent those attacks at the same time.

The additional language that has been demanded in this bill does exactly that. It has reduced our ability to be able to protect the Nation under the guise that we had to protect civil liberties that were never infringed upon in the 4 years that the PATRIOT Act has been in existence. I particularly commend Senators Specter and Leahy for the work they have done, Congressman Sensenbrenner in the House, and other members of the Judiciary Committee in the House. They have worked long and hard. There have been some provisions that we had to take in order to get this bill reauthorized to protect the American people that we wish we didn't have to take. I just hope this bill will work as well as the original PATRIOT Act which has done so well in keeping us free of terror ever since 9/11.

I don't think anybody can doubt that. We held some 24 hearings over the years when I was chairman on the PATRIOT Act. I demanded that every hearing show us where the act has not acted properly, show us where there has been a violation, show us where there has been a violation of civil liberties, show us where somebody who is a noncriminal has been hurt by the PATRIOT Act. The fact is, not one time in all those hearings have they been able to come up with one illustration that people's civil liberties have been interfered with.

We passed a bill that was the Hatch-Dole bill back in, I believe it was 1996. It was the antiterrorism effective death penalty bill. That bill took care of domestic terrorism, but our laws were not up to speed with regard to international terrorism. So the PATRIOT Act was the way that we got our laws up to speed so that we could work against international terrorism. All of these provisions in the original PATRIOT Act we basically have in our anticrime laws. So what we did is, we had these laws that would enable law enforcement to do a lot of things to protect us against the Mafia, against child molesters, against pornographers. We brought the PATRIOT Act up to the level of those law enforcement tools. That is what the original PATRIOT Act did. That wasn't good enough for some of our colleagues. So there has been a lot of screaming and shouting about the PATRIOT Act, even though not one illustration has been given in the last, really, 5 years that would indicate that the original PATRIOT Act had interfered with anybody's just civil liberties.

We need to pass this bill such as it is. We need to pass it and enact it into law and give our law enforcement the tools they need to be able to protect us. I just wish we could have reenacted the original PATRIOT Act. But be that as it may, I compliment the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Leahy, for the work they have done. I don't think it could have happened without them and without Chairman Sensenbrenner and others in the House. I express my regard for them and my regard for this bill and hope everybody will vote for it.

I yield the floor.