Floor Statements

This is a straightforward amendment. You get to decide whether you want to continue to send money to an organization that is bankrupt, fraudulent; has peacekeeping troops that rape men, women, and children; has absolutely no transparency in spite of our law that demands it, or to pay for the courage and the support of people who do deserve it.

We always find a reason not to make the hard choice. I suspect we will find a good reason not to make the hard choice this time. But for $3.7 billion to help the people who help us and quit sending money that goes down the tube--half of everything we send to the United Nations gets wasted or defrauded--it is time for us to make the hard choice. That is what the amendment is about. There are a lot of reasons you can find to vote against it. It will take real courage to vote for it.

Mr. President, I seek recognition to speak on the nomination of Judge Hamilton.

I come to the floor--I am a member of the Judiciary Committee--to raise significant concerns about this nominee. There is no question he is a fine man. There is no question he has a lot of experience, a great

education. But there is also no question in my mind that he is a highly activist Federal judge who will be promoted to a level of making final determinations on most of the decisions that come before him and his circuit.

He does have a distinguished history, but his history is complicated by, in my opinion, a view that it doesn't matter what the Congress says; that it doesn't actually matter what precedent says; it doesn't matter what stare decisis, the precedent of the Supreme Court, says; he believes he can rule against that.

After attending his hearings, I would note there were over 10,000 pages of decisions and his vote on the committee was well before we could actually consider all 10,000 pages of decisions. He was voted out of our committee.

I want to raise in detail some of my problems and then give some case histories to back them up. For example, I asked Judge Hamilton whether he thought it was appropriate for a judge to consider foreign law when interpreting the Constitution. Rather than recognize the court should not be looking to foreign law when interpreting our Constitution, Judge Hamilton used an analogy of judges considering law review articles of American lawyers with consulting decisions of foreign courts. He stated:

[C]ourts . . . will look to guidance from wise commentators

from many places--professors from law schools, experts in a

particular field who have written about it. And in recent

years, the Supreme Court has started to look at some courts

from other countries where members of the Court may believe

that there is some wisdom to be gained. As long as it is

confined to something similar to citing law professors'

articles, I do not have a problem with that.

I have serious concerns with that. Let me put out what those are. What he fails to recognize when he equates the two is that professors who are writing on American law in American journals are writing about the interpretation of our Constitution based on American statutes and American values. They begin their analysis with an understanding of the creation of our Constitution by our Founders and our system of limited government.

When American courts look to foreign law, they are considering opinions and wisdom of people who do not share our values and who are unfamiliar with American statutes and constitutional interpretations. By conflating the two types of references, Judge Hamilton tries to minimize the damage courts can inflict on our Constitution when they look to foreign courts for guidance.

I was even more disturbed by Judge Hamilton's answers to my written questions following his hearing. In his responses, Judge Hamilton embraced President Obama's empathy standard, writing that empathy was ``important in fulfilling [the judicial] oath.''

As a matter of fact, Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor cited just the opposite. What she said was that she looks at facts, not empathy. She rejected the empathy standard.

He also explained why he believed he fit this standard and emphasized his effects-based approach, stating:

Because I will continue to do my best to follow the law, to

treat all parties who come before me with respect and

dignity, and to understand how legal rules or decisions will

affect behavior and incentives for different people and

different institutions.

That is nowhere in the oath of a judge. Nowhere is that. Considering the consequences of his ruling and how that might affect people should not be part of the decisionmaking, in making the ruling.

These statements following his hearing only confirmed what I feared prior to his hearing: that Judge Hamilton embraces a liberal activist philosophy and has implemented that philosophy in his legal decisions.

As evidence of his activist tendencies on the bench, I will turn now to some of his opinions as a district court judge that illustrate his propensity to allow his personal biases to influence his decision. In the case of Women's Choice v. Newman, Judge Hamilton succeeded in blocking the enforcement of a valid Indiana law for informed consent for 7 years--7 years. The law required doctors to give certain medical information to women in person before an abortion could be performed and required a waiting period before an abortion was performed.

There is already precedent, clearly by Casey, in the Supreme Court. When overturning Judge Hamilton's ruling, the Seventh Circuit harshly criticized his decision by stating:

[F]or seven years, Indiana has been prevented from

enforcing a statute materially identical to a law held valid

by the Supreme Court in Casey, by this court in Karlin, and

by the Fifth Circuit in Barnes. No court anywhere in the

country (other than one district judge in Indiana) has held

any similar law invalid in the years since Casey . . .

Indiana (like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) is entitled to put

its law into effect and have that law judged by its own

consequences.

That is a harsh review.

Further, Judge Coffee, in his concurring opinion in this case, was even more critical of Judge Hamilton's opinion, and he specifically criticized Hamilton's reliance on one study which was conducted by the Planned Parenthood-affiliated Guttmacher Institute.

Here is what he said about Judge Hamilton's decision:

[His decision] invades the legitimate province of the

legislative and executive branches.

That is the problem with judicial activists. They see no limits. They take a personal bias, and they use that bias rather than interpreting the statutes and looking at precedent. They make their own decision. For 7 years Indiana was without a duly-passed statute passed by the elected representatives of that State, in error, because Judge Hamilton believed something different.

He didn't rely on precedent. He relied on his personal bias, a strong personal bias that said that wasn't right, when all the other courts had recognized the precedent by Casey.

Here is what Judge Coffee also said:

As a result, literally thousands of Indiana women have

undergone abortions since 1995 without having had the benefit

of receiving the necessary information to ensure that their

choice is premised upon the wealth of information available

to make a well-informed and educated life-or-death decision.

I remain convinced that [Judge Hamilton] abused his

discretion when depriving the sovereign State of Indiana

of its lawful right to enforce the statute before us. I

can only hope that the number of women in Indiana who may

have been harmed by the judge's decision is but few in

number.

As the Seventh Circuit properly notes, as a result of his activism, Judge Hamilton effectively prevented the people of Indiana from enforcing a duly enacted, reasonable restriction on abortion in violation of existing law and Supreme Court precedent.

In two other cases, Judge Hamilton succeeded in excluding traditional religious expression from the public square. In the case of Hinrichs v. Bosma, Judge Hamilton prohibited prayers in the Indiana State Legislature that mentioned Jesus Christ while allowing those that mentioned Allah. The Seventh Circuit reversed that decision.

In another case, Grossbaum v. Indianapolis-Marion County Building Authority, Judge Hamilton's decision prohibited a rabbi from placing a menorah in a public building. A unanimous Seventh Circuit court panel reversed Judge Hamilton's ruling and noted that he had ignored two Supreme Court cases that were directly on point.

Why would a learned judge ignore precedent? There is only one reason for ignoring precedent, and that is a judicial activist bias that he does not have to follow the law; that he is not limited by the Constitution, but he is limited to his personal feelings and his personal beliefs. That is the exact opposite of what we want in terms of neutrality of those directing court proceedings.

Judge Hamilton's record also suggests he is empathetic toward criminal defendants rather than the victims of crimes. According to the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, local practitioners have said Judge Hamilton ``is the most lenient of any judge in the district. . . .''

``He is one of the more liberal judges in the district.''

``He leans towards the defense.''

``He is your best chance for downward departures.''

``In sentencing, he tends to be very empathetic to the downtrodden or those who commit crimes due to poverty.''

Blind justice doesn't recognize wealth when you commit a crime. It doesn't recognize wealth. If, in fact, that were the case, we should have more severe penalties for people who have greater means. But, instead, we treat everybody the same under the law.

I believe his judicial record confirms the statements of these local practitioners. For example, in the case of United States v. Woolsey, Judge Hamilton ignored the prior conviction of a defendant in order to avoid imposing a life sentence and was reversed by the Seventh Circuit. He ignored a prior conviction. He chose to ignore it. Activist, not following the law, not following the Code of Judicial Conduct. You do not get the choice to ignore it. It is a breach of his judicial oath. Yet he does it.

Here is what the Seventh Circuit said as they criticized Judge Hamilton's decision:

[The] Indiana district court was not free to ignore

Woolsey's earlier conviction . . . we have admonished

district courts that the statutory penalties for recidivism .

. . are not optional, even if the court deems them unwise or

an inappropriate response to repeat drug offenders.

In yet another case demonstrating his empathy toward criminals, Judge Hamilton took the unusual step of issuing a separate written order of judgment and conviction ``so that it may be of assistance in the event of an application for executive clemency'' because he believed the 15- year mandatory sentence he was forced to impose on a child pornographer was too harsh.

In this case, U.S. v. Rinehart, the defendant, a police officer, pled guilty to two counts of producing child pornography after he took pictures of a 16-year-old girl engaged in ``sexually explicit conduct'' and took videos of himself and a 17-year-old girl engaging in sexual relations. These images ended up on his home computer, and he was charged under the Child Protection Act of 1984.

In a separate written order of judgment, Judge Hamilton concluded by stating his personal views in this case and urging executive clemency. He is stating his personal views in this case, in other words, not that of a judge. He has stepped out of being a judge. Now, using the role of a judge, he is using his personal views to influence clemency. Here is what he said:

This case, involving sexual activity with victims who were

16 and 17 years old and who could and did legally consent to

the sexual activity, is very different. But because of the

mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years required by 18 U.S.C.,

2251(e), this court could not impose a just sentence in this

case. The only way that Rinehart's punishment could be

modified to become just is through an exercise of executive

clemency by the President. The court hopes that will happen.

He later confirmed to us that he thought that action was appropriate. When Congress passed the Child Protection Act of 1984, at issue in this case, it determined that in order to strengthen Federal child pornography laws, a child is defined as someone under the age of 18. So what did Judge Hamilton do? He said what we say doesn't make any difference. The fact that the legislative body signed it, and it was put into law by the executive branch--he didn't think that counted because he didn't agree with it. So he went outside of it to try to get clemency based on him thinking we were wrong. He didn't have any basis of law to do it, but then did it anyway.

In our constitutional system of government the power to create legislation is assigned to the Congress and a judge must simply interpret the law as it is written. This judge refused to do that.

When a judge second-guesses Congress, criticizes its legislative decisions as being unfair, and invites a grant of clemency, he undermines the rule of law and the confidence the American people have in their government. Judge Hamilton's action in this case belies his tendency to empathize with criminal defendants.

These are just a few of the statements and opinions in Judge Hamilton's record that form the basis of my opposition. I believe he is an activist jurist. He has shown that he will allow his personal biases and prejudices to affect the outcome of cases before him. I do not believe he deserves a promotion to the Seventh Circuit where he will be even less constrained by precedent and the possibility of a reversal on appeal.

I will be voting against his confirmation, and I believe the people of this country should be very wary of other judges who have an activist bent, who disrespect the rule of law, who believe they do not have to look at precedent, who, because their personal bias is different than what the law says, believe they can be in a position to effect change in the law rather than have it come through, or all the way to the court, to do that.

The job of the judge is to interpret the law and the facts carefully. This judge does not do that.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I know we are going to vote at 5:30 on an amendment and on a motion to commit. I send a motion to commit to the desk at this time.

Madam President, I think under the agreement I will have 30 minutes to discuss this and the other amendment I have; is that correct?

I thank the Chair. I will try not to consume that amount of time to move this along.

Last weekend, the Senate, prior to Veterans Day, had the urgency of passing a bill that will, in fact, help a specified group of veterans, but it won't help veterans who have identical needs to that group of veterans because they were excluded from it.

The Caregivers Act also will require, at a minimum, $3.7 billion in spending over the next 5 years, and none of it--there was no decision to make in terms of that bill on any priorities about what we get rid of. As a matter of fact, the intent, as stated by the majority whip, was that we needed to pass this before last Wednesday so that people could get care. Well, the truth is, no care will come about if there is no money in this bill for that program.

The whole purpose for this motion to commit is to do two things: One, send the committee back and eliminate the discrimination against veterans in the first gulf war, against veterans in the Vietnam war, the Korean war, and World War II who have identical needs that require family caregivers and include them in it. The second aspect of the motion to commit is to find it from the available funds we have today. We suggest some opportunity for that but don't mandate where it comes from. But we should reduce spending somewhere else to pay for this. The reason that is important is, this past year, 43 cents out of every dollar we spent we borrowed from our grandchildren.

So in making a motion to commit this bill, we are doing three essential things. No. 1 is that we are actually being truthful that we really want to take care of this need and will do it in this fiscal year. No. 2 is that we are not discriminating against other veterans who have identical needs. No. 3 is that we are not discriminating against our children and grandchildren by not making hard choices to pay for it within existing funds.

I have no illusions that this motion to commit will succeed. But it doesn't change the very real facts that are in front of this Nation-- that we cannot continue to spend money without making choices about what is most important. None of us disagree that taking care of those who have sacrificed for us has to become No. 2 behind the defense of this Nation in terms of the priorities for this country. Nothing else is higher in priority. Yet the bill we have before us doesn't make that a priority and the authorizing language doesn't make that a priority. As a matter of fact, the bill before us asks the VA to study this issue rather than actually go on and fund this issue by making the appropriate changes.

There is a significant increase in this bill, and outside of foreign expenditures, it is over 5.5 percent. It is not objectionable that it would be there, that kind of increase, given the demand our troops have had and their injuries and what they have suffered in terms of defending this country and fighting two ongoing wars. However, some of that money ought to be winnowed down so that we can take care of the very people who protect us.

We have had these tremendous speeches on why we have to do it now. If those speeches aren't going to ring hollow, we ought to commit the bill to make sure we have money for the Veterans Caregiver Act.

Amendment No. 2757

The other area I wish to spend time on is that in this bill we also have various and sundry reports that have been requested by the committee of different branches of the Federal Government. One of the most important ways to build trust in the Congress today is for us to create and increase the level of transparency for the American people to see our actions. This amendment is simply an amendment that says any reports that do not divulge or put at risk national security data should be made available to all the Senators, all the Congress, and all of the American people. This has been in several of the appropriations bills we have passed in the Senate. Unfortunately, rarely has it stayed in the conference report because there are those who don't want the American people to see what we are doing and how we are doing it.

I will sum up. We find ourselves in a big pickle right now as a nation. We soon will be voting in this body to increase the debt limit to $12.1 trillion. That figures out as a significant amount of money for every individual in this country--well over $35,000--but it is a very small amount compared to what is getting ready to happen in the next 9 years as our debt triples. Our debt will triple in the next 9 years, which means we will go from 30-some thousand dollars per individual to very close to $100,000 per individual.

That doesn't compare to the unfunded liability. If you take everybody in this country who is 25 years of age and younger--that is 103 million Americans--and you ask what is the consequence to those young Americans 20 years from now, the consequence is that they are going to be paying for another $1 million in debt for which they got no benefit, and the interest costs on that alone will be over $70,000 per year, per individual under age 25 today and under 45 20 years from now and all their kids.

The idea that we ought to pay for the new things we do by eliminating the things that aren't important, that we ought to pay for the new things we do by eliminating some of the $300 billion worth of waste, fraud, and duplication in the Federal Government every year is not a novel idea outside Washington; it is only a novel idea inside Washington--the very fact that the next generation will be put at a disadvantage because we lack the same courage and clarity of moral character our troops have in terms of making tough choices.

My hope is that with the motion to commit, in fact, the body will look and say we really can fund this and find waste and we can make choices about what is most important versus what is not most important, and not only will we help the veterans who are deserving of our assistance at this time, but we will also help the veterans' children and grandchildren by not plugging a credit card in and saying: Whatever we are going to do for veterans today, we are going to charge to you.

Instead, I hope that we are going to carry the load and that we are going to embrace the heritage of our country, the heritage of sacrifice and of creating opportunity that is better for the generations that follow than the opportunities that were given to us. That is not happening right now in our country. We are going to have a larger deficit next year than we have this year. We are going to take 43 cents out of every dollar we actually spend next year and we are going to charge that all to those two generations that follow us. That is not what made this country strong. That is not what our veterans fought for. That is not the country they want to see in the future. It is time we made some hard choices.

The resistance will be: I don't want to eliminate my earmark; I don't want to eliminate the parochial things I have done for my State to take care of veterans. They will not come out and say that, but that will be the result of the vote. The vote is, take care of the politicians, say you are taking care of the veterans, but undermine the future of the next two generations. That is what the vote is going to be about on the motion to commit--a lot of controversy and emotion associated with not doing things on time. But I would rather do things right and do things that will secure the future rather than destroy it. I would rather do things that honor the sacrifice rather than dishonor the sacrifice.

We can claim all we want when we pass a veterans caregiver bill, but if we don't fund it and there is no money for it, it is an announcement that we care but no action behind it. If we don't cover all the veterans who have the same need, we know it is political only. The motion to commit makes sure that we cover all veterans, that we treat them all equally, and if they have the same kinds of needs, they will get the same kinds of service--not because they are young and served in the war on terror but because they served this great Nation and preserved it with their courage, valor, and commitment.

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

Madam President, this motion to commit is based on the fact that we have a need among veterans that has an upcoming authorization bill but there is no money in this bill for it. The motion to commit would instruct the conferees to expand those eligible to all veterans who have the same need, to find the money to pay for the first year of this in that bill and not charge it to the next generation.

The idea behind the motion to commit is that our veterans are a priority, and if they are, we ought to defund things that are less of a priority and make sure we take care of them. The obligation for us to fulfill our commitment to veterans is not obviated by the lack of our obligation to fulfill our commitment to the generation that follows.

I would appreciate the support of my colleagues on the motion to commit.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to, No. 1, offer an amendment, which I will do in 3 or 4 minutes, and then spend 3 or 4 minutes on that amendment and then ask unanimous consent for 15 minutes to talk on the Executive Calendar as well as speak in morning business.

Madam President, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 2757 be called up.

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

Madam President, this is a very straightforward amendment. This is an amendment I have offered on all appropriations bills to date. We passed it on Housing and Urban Development- Transportation. We passed it on Energy and Water. We passed it on Interior. We passed it on the Defense appropriations bill. It is an amendment that says that the reports that are asked for in this appropriations bill, unless there is reason to not yield to the people of this country the information contained in that report for either national security or defense purposes, that those studies will be made available to the American citizens and the rest of the Senate.

Each appropriations bill, in proper fashion and by a good job by the Appropriations Committee, asks for reports and reviews on how the money is spent. All this amendment does is require that the reports that are required to be submitted by a Federal agency in this act be posted on a public Web site of that agency for all Members of Congress and all Americans to see. There is an exception for reports that contain classified or proprietary information.

In the House and Senate version of this bill, the following reports are--I won't go through all of them--what action DOD and the State Department have taken to encourage host countries to assume a greater share of the defense burden--that is something that ought to be shared with the American people; an annual report on operation and maintenance expenditures for each individual general or flag officer quarters at each of our bases around the country during the prior year; a report of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on approved major construction projects for which funds are not obligated within the timeframe provided for in the act--in other words, to know what we are getting ready to spend, what is obligated; a report detailing the current planned use of property estimated to have greater than $1 million in annual rental costs; a detailed report on how the $3 billion that has already been appropriated for information technology projects at the Veterans Administration' is spent, including operations and maintenance costs, salaries, and expenses by individual project; and then finally, a quarterly report on the financial status of the Veterans' Administration, a health status.

This is just plain, good, open government. It creates transparency, and it allows the American people to hold us to account. By requiring that Federal agencies produce reports funded in this bill and publicize them on a Web site, everybody will have easy access to the reports. That is not the case today in the Senate or in the Congress. Evaluating and reading these reports may prompt a congressional hearing, Federal legislation, or even termination of a Federal program or policy.

This is a straightforward amendment. It is my hope our colleagues will accept this amendment and it will become part of this appropriations bill as well.

Nomination of Judge Andre Davis

Madam President, I now wish to spend a few moments talking about Judge Andre Davis, who is the nominee for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

I sit on the Judiciary Committee, and I voted against Judge Davis's nomination coming out of the Judiciary Committee. I thought the American people ought to know why.

He is definitely an individual of integrity. He is a very pleasant individual. I enjoyed the banter back and forth during the hearing. But as a Federal district judge, Judge Davis has been reversed by the Fourth Circuit Court numerous times. A lot of judges get reversed, but there is a trend with Judge Davis where we have seen the law misapplied. So I have some real concerns. This is a lifetime appointment to this circuit court, No. 1. No. 2, the Supreme Court only hears 80 cases a year, so if a case comes to a circuit court, most often that is a final determination.

Let me spend a little bit of time on characteristics of these reversals because they are very concerning to me. He has been reversed by the Fourth Circuit Court in six different cases where he was noted to suppress evidence. For those of you like me who are not lawyers, let me explain what that means.

Suppressing evidence in a criminal case most often results in a defendant not being convicted of a crime and a victim and their family not receiving justice. Not only do the victim and victim's family not get justice but the government has to spend taxpayer dollars and resources to appeal the case to the next level. Let me give some examples.

In the case of U.S. v. Kimbrough, Judge Davis suppressed the statement of a defendant who, while in the presence of police, told his mother he had a gun in the room. The officer was trying to give him his Miranda warnings at the time when the mother asked him if there was anything else in the basement, besides the cocaine that was readily visible to her and the officer.

In reversing Judge Davis's decision, the Fourth Circuit offered a harsh rebuke stating that since the mother ``is a private citizen, her spontaneous questioning of [the defendant] alone, independent of the police officers, could never implicate the Fifth Amendment.'' The court further stated that Judge Davis's conclusion that `` `Miss Kimbrough's involvement in questioning her son was the equivalent of official custodial interrogation,' . . . is at best incomplete and, taken literally, is simply erroneous.'' The Fourth Circuit said that a statement made in

these circumstances should ``never'' be suppressed and Judge Davis's reasoning was ``simply erroneous.''

In U.S. v. Siegel, Judge Davis suppressed evidence of the defendant's 20-year history of scheming and plotting to take money from previous husbands in a case where the defendant was accused of dating the victim, taking his money, and then killing him. The facts of this case are particularly worrisome.

The defendant had met the victim and started dating him, eventually taking his money and trying to have him institutionalized. After failing at having him institutionalized, she killed the victim and hid his body. Although the body was found in 1996, it was not identified until 2003. During that time, the defendant remarried and continued to collect the man's Social Security checks. When the body was identified, Federal agents contacted her and she told them the victim was alive and had run off with some other woman. She was arrested and charged with murdering the victim to prevent him from reporting her fraud. When the prosecution sought to introduce the defendant's prior bad acts at trial, Judge Davis refused. According to the Fourth Circuit, Judge Davis was concerned about the length of the trial. The Fourth Circuit reversed, finding that the evidence was admissible and, because the government charged the defendant with committing murder to prevent being reported for fraud, this evidence was an essential element of the government's case. As for Judge Davis's concern about a lengthy trial, the Fourth Circuit concluded that was an improper basis for excluding wholesale this clearly probative and relevant evidence of other crimes. On remand, the defendant was found guilty.

In the case of U.S. v. Jamison, Judge Davis suppressed the confession of a felon who shot himself, called out to police for help, and then gave the confession during the routine police investigation into his injury. He was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court of appeals reversed Judge Davis's ruling and said the man's confession was admissible in the case.

In U.S. v. Custis, the defendant was prosecuted for several Federal drug and firearm offenses. The evidence used against him included weapons and drugs that were seized by the police from his truck and residence. The police search was based on a warrant obtained with evidence they compiled from an informant who had given them reliable data on the defendant's drug operation. Judge Davis granted the defendant's suppression motion, finding that the search warrant was faulty. The Fourth Circuit reversed, stating that Judge Davis erred in granting the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, and that if Judge Davis had read the supporting affidavit in a ``commonsense, rather than hypertechnical manner, as he was required to do,'' he would not have excluded the evidence.

There are many other cases where Judge Davis has incorrectly suppressed evidence that I will not go into at this time. There are many other reasons, whether it be violating the sentencing levels according to the Fourth Circuit, an abuse of discretion, remanding for resentencing, or being more than a neutral arbiter in terms of plea arrangements. Here is what the Fourth Circuit said about Judge Davis's role in terms of the plea arrangements:

We have not found a single case in which the extent of

judicial involvement in plea negotiations equaled that in the

case at hand. The district court repeatedly appeared to be an

advocate for the pleas rather than as a neutral arbiter, and

any fair reading of the record reveals the substantial risk

of coerced guilty pleas. We can only conclude that the

district court's role as advocate for the defendant's guilty

pleas affected the fairness, integrity, and public reputation

of judicial proceedings.

I won't go on, but those six cases I outlined are enough for me to not be able to support this judge, who is obviously a very fine gentleman and a good man, but who I believe has made some significant inexcusable errors on the bench.

Finally, I want to spend a moment talking about a bill several of my colleagues have brought up, and it is the veterans caregivers omnibus bill. Regardless of what the news reports say, and my colleagues say, I am not opposed to us making sure we keep each and every commitment we make to veterans. I think many of the programs that are in this bill are ideally suited for the problems our veterans have. What I object to is the fact we are going to create $3.7 billion worth of spending--and that is a CBO score, not my score, the $3.7 billion worth of spending-- over the next 5 years and not make any effort whatsoever to eliminate programs that don't have anywhere near the priority this program does.

The other thing I object to is the timing. There is no question we need to do this, especially for our wounded warriors. But we are excluding our Vietnam veterans from having access to this same care, and we are excluding the first gulf war veterans from having the same access. They have the same needs. Nobody can deny they don't have some of the same needs, but we are excluding them, and from a constitutional standpoint, I am not sure we can ever get to the point where we would agree that is fair treatment for our veterans.

I wish to finish my statement first. I listened to the Senator's statement earlier today on the floor, so let me finish my statement.

The other thing that is concerning is we have a bill before us right now--this appropriations bill--that has no money for this in it, one, and authorizations aren't required. So $280 billion of the money we appropriate every year is not authorized. The fact there is no money in this bill for this program tells me something, that the urgency of getting a press release isn't near the urgency of the needs of our veterans. Because if we allow the normal process to happen, it will be 18 months from now before any money comes forward for this bill.

Finally, we have offered up a list of programs we think have much lower priority than our veterans' health care, and so I think of my brother, who is a veteran, and I ask myself: What did he serve for? What did he fight for? Did he fight so we could come back here and undermine the future by not making the same tough choices that are required for every family and, more importantly, not demonstrate the courage in our service that the veterans demonstrate in their service-- which is putting yourself at risk to do what is best for our country? That is what they do, but we ought to be doing the same thing.

We ran a very large deficit this last year. Forty-three cents of every dollar we spent this last year was borrowed. None of the people in this room will ever pay a penny toward that debt. It will be our children and grandchildren. And the fact is we will not make the hard choices to pay for this so that tomorrow we can say, we are going to eliminate these programs so this program can go forward, and we are going to take the money that is going for these programs so this program can go forward.

What this appropriations bill does, as a matter of fact, is ask for a study from the Veterans' Administration on the need of this bill. So if this bill is certainly a priority, the funding for it should have been in this appropriations bill, and it is not. Nobody can deny it is not. So I come to the question: When will enough be enough? When will we stop playing a game on dollars and ultimately make the same hard choices and demonstrate the courage our veterans have demonstrated? I can't think of many veterans who want now what is paid on the backs of their children or grandchildren. What they want to see us do is the hard work, as they do the hard work, to put ourselves at risk by telling some people no so we can tell veterans yes. What we are doing today is we are going to tell veterans yes but we are going to tell our children no.

I can easily outline for my colleagues $300 billion--that is ``B'' for billion--of waste, fraud, and duplication in the Federal budget. They may disagree with some of that, but there is no question you could get a consensus on $3.7 billion of that. On 1 percent of it, you could get a consensus. But there is no effort made on this authorization bill to create priorities. What we hear all the time is: Well, that is not the way it works up here. Authorization bills are simply that, and it has to go through the appropriations, and you are not spending any money.

Well, if we are not spending any money on this bill, then we are not solving the problems for our veterans.

And if we don't have any money for this program in this appropriations bill, we are holding out a hollow promise.

I ask my colleagues to work with us. Let's offset the price for this, demonstrate the same courage and the same level of commitment. There has been no secret on who has said we should not pass this by unanimous consent, and there has never been a time that we refused to talk to anybody about that.

My hope is the American people are listening. Sure, we do want to do the right things for our veterans, but there has to come a time when we are forced to make hard choices, and we are not seeing that. We are not seeing that in this bill, and we are not seeing it in the authorization for this veterans and caregivers omnibus bill.

With that, I yield to my colleague from Illinois, and retain the time until he has finished asking whatever question he may have.

Yes, sir.

If we are going to do this bill, yes, I would.

Absolutely, but when was the hold? Less than 3 weeks ago. It wasn't brought to the floor before then.

Okay, 5 weeks. Pardon me.

I would answer my colleague that we do that 280 billion times a year.

What I would tell my colleague is you do it routinely on the appropriations bill. So why is this any different?

My question to my colleague is: If in fact this is so important to get done today, knowing there is no money in this bill for this--my colleague would agree with that, would he not, that there is no money in this appropriations bill for this act? Is that a correct statement?

There is not. So we are going to say we are going to authorize something in the hopes that we have to do it right now, knowing that unless we have an omnibus or a supplemental this won't actually happen until we get to this bill again next year.

No, I will not concede that. Because what it does is it causes us--and I enjoy debating my colleague from Illinois. Here is my point on authorization bills. We can authorize and authorize and authorize, and when we do, we are telling veterans they are going to get this. That is what we are telling them. We are communicating to every veterans organization and we are telling them we are going to do this. So if we are going to tell them we are going to do it, we ought to put in process the way to do it. And if we are saying it has to happen right now, then where is the money? Show me the money to make it happen right now.

The fact is--and I will reclaim my time--we play games, and the game we are playing is that we can authorize and send out a press release but then we are not held accountable to do what we have authorized. There are a lot of good key components in this bill. My objection is twofold: One, it discriminates against previous veterans, which I think is uncalled for; and two, we don't eliminate any of the waste in terms of authorizations so that we more focus the Appropriations Committee.

There is no question the Appropriations Committee has the power to fund money anywhere they want and they do it whether the bills are authorized or not authorized. I will be glad to give the Senator from Illinois a list of the $280 billion we spend every year that is not authorized. It is a spurious argument to state that we should not have fiscal accountability when we authorize programs. We should have and we ought to make the tough choices. The problem is, we do not do any oversight, to speak of, to cause us to know the programs that are not working that we could eliminate so we will not have duplicate funding and so we will not spend it.

The question veterans ask me is what is our priority with our money. The first priority has to be defending the country. The second priority ought to be about taking care of veterans. What we do is we have $300 billion a year in waste, fraud, and duplication on things that do not do either of those and that are extremely wasteful. Nobody with common sense would say they ought to continue. Yet we continue down the process.

I have taken more than my time and I know my colleagues are going to vote. I would tell my colleague from Illinois we have had this debate a large number of times. We have a frank disagreement about the fiscal discipline that should be required of us as Senators. The fact is, we are going to authorize a bill and we are not going to make any tough choices about anything else and we are not going to take away any options from the Appropriations Committee when it comes to funding. To me, that abrogates our responsibility to be good authorizers. I will stand by that conviction as long as I am in the Senate. We had that debate on the bridge to nowhere, which my colleague supported, which was in an authorizing bill--and multiple times.

With that, I yield the floor and I am prepared to listen to my colleague from Illinois.

Madam Presiding, during today's conversation, the Senator from Illinois stated that S. 1963 had been on the Senate calendar since September 25, 2009. In fact, S. 1963 was read the second time and placed on the calendar on October 29, 2009. A request was not made for unanimous consent to pass the bill on the minority side until Friday, November 6, 2009.

There are currently 35,000 veterans receiving aid and attendance benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, which provides funding for veterans who need extra help at home but do not need institutional care. The aid and attendance program assists all disabled veterans of all wars. Out of this population, around 2,000 veterans received their injuries after September 11 and would qualify for extra caregiver assistance in this bill. However, caregivers for tens of thousands of veterans of prior wars would not. Of course, that assumes that the House passes the Caregiver Assistance Act in its Chamber and the President signs it into law. Then it assumes that next year, in the discussion on the fiscal year 2011 budget, the President requests funding for caregiver assistance, or that both appropriations committees include funding, and that the President signs this into law. The absolute earliest that a caregiver would receive assistance is October 1, 2010. However, that date is not likely given the performance of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Right now, the average processing of a disability claim is 162 days at the Department. Given that the Department will have to make rules on this new benefit, it will be well into 2011 before any caregiver benefits from this program. However, passing this bill before Veterans Day will give benefits to politicians, who will have made an empty promise in 2009 that might not be realized until 2011, and even then, would be paid for by our children and grandchildren.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Louisiana be recognized for 3 minutes and then I follow with the 30 minutes I had allotted.

Mr. President, I am going to spend about 20 minutes talking about amendments I have that are germane and we will be voting on. But they are small amendments. There is nothing big here. They are amendments that are designed to make a point.

We ran, by a factor of two, the largest deficit in the history of this country. Of the money we spent in the 2009 fiscal year, we borrowed 43 percent of it: 43 cents out of every dollar we expended, 43 cents we borrowed from our children and our grandchildren.

We have before us a bill, the Commerce-Justice-Science bill, that will go up almost 13 percent, 12.6 percent this year, on the back of a 15.5-percent increase last year. The latest inflation numbers are deflation, a minus four-tenths of 1 percent.

The question America has to ask itself, after we pass $800 billion of stimulus spending for which this agency got billions which are not reflected in any of these increases, is how is it that when we can spend $1.4 trillion we do not have, we can come to the floor and continue to have double-digit increases in almost everything we pass?

It does not take a lot of math to figure out that if we keep doing what we are doing, in 4\1/2\ years the size of the Federal Government doubles. If you do this for another 4 years, we will double the size of the Federal Government. So there is absolutely no fiscal restraint within the appropriations bills that are going through this body with the exception of one, and that is the Defense Department, probably the one that is most important to us in terms of our national security, in terms of where there is no question we have waste but where we need to make sure that we are prepared for the challenges that face us.

If you look at what we passed through the body, and you look at 2008, 2009, you go 10, 9.9, 9.4, 13.0, 13.3, 14.1, 15.7--that was last year-- and now we are going to go 5.7, 7.2, 1.4, 12.6, 22.5, 16.2, and 12.6.

Not only are we on an unsustainable course as far as mandatory programs such as Social Security and Medicare--by the way, we have now borrowed from Social Security, stolen from Social Security, $2.4 trillion which we do not even recognize we owe. We do not put it on our balance sheet. We have stolen $758 billion from the Medicare trust fund, which we do not even recognize. So we borrowed $3 trillion from funds that were supposed to be there for our seniors and our retirees which our children--not us; our children and our grandchildren--will have to repay.

I saw this the other day on the Internet. It speaks a million words to me. Here is a little girl, a toddler with a pacifier in her mouth. She has got a sign hanging around her neck. She says: I am already $38,375 in debt and I only own a doll house.

The problem with that is that she way understates what she is in debt for. That is just the recognized external debt. That does not count what we borrowed internally from our grandchildren. It does not count the unfunded liabilities she through her lifetime will never get any benefit from but will pay because we have stolen the benefit for us, without being good stewards of the money that has been given to us.

If you go through this and you look at it, by the time she is 40, she will be responsible for the $1,119,000 worth of debt we have accumulated for payments for Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid that she got absolutely zero benefit from.

Then if you think about a $1 million debt for a little girl like this and what it costs, what the interest is to fund that debt, if you just said 6 percent, she has got to make $60,000 first to pay the interest on that debt before she pays any taxes, her share of the taxes, and before she has the capability to have a home and have children and have a college education, own a car. We are absolutely, with bills such as this, strangling her. We are strangling her.

I am reminded what one of our Founders said, and it is so important. I love the Senator from Maryland. She said we had plenty of money in the checkbook to do this. We do not have plenty of money in the checkbook to do this. What we have is an unlimited credit card that we keep putting into the machine and saying, we will take the money and our kids will pay later. That is what we are doing.

Thomas Jefferson said, ``I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.''

When we are seeing 12.6 and 15 percent increases in the nonmandatory side, the non-Social Security, the non-Medicare, the non-Medicaid side of the budget, we have fallen into the trap Thomas Jefferson was worried about.

I know my colleagues are sick of me talking about this. But you know what, the American people are not sick of us talking about it. They get it. They realize that we refuse to make hard choices. Every one of them is making hard choices today with their families about their future based on their income. Yet we have the gall to bring to the floor double-digit spending at a time when people, 10 percent of Americans, are out of work, seeking work, another 5 percent have given up, and we are saying, that is fine if we have a 12-percent increase. It is fine. No problem. There is plenty of money in the checking account.

There is no money in the checking account. We are perilously close to having our foreign policy dictated to us by those who own our bonds, people outside of this country. The time to start changing that is now.

I have two little amendments, and one is very instructive. The political science community is hot and bothered because I would dare to say that maybe in a time of $1.4 trillion deficits, maybe at a time when we have 10 percent unemployment, maybe at a time when we are at the worst financial condition we have ever been in our country's history, maybe we ought not spend money asking the questions why politicians give vague answers, or how we can do tele-townhall meetings and raise our numbers. Maybe we ought not to spend this money on those kinds of things right now.

You see, it is instructive because those who are getting from the Federal Government now do not care about their grandchildren. What they want is what they are getting now. Give me now; it doesn't matter what happens to the rest of the generations that follow us.

So we have the political science community all in an uproar, not because I am against the study of political science but because I think now is not the time to spend money on that. Now is the time to spend money we absolutely have to spend, on things which are absolute necessities, as every family in America is making those decisions today. We do not have the courage to do it because it offends individual interest groups that are getting money from the Federal Government for a priority that is much less than the defense of this country, protecting people, securing the future, taking care of their health care, and making sure we have law and order.

You see, Alexander Tyler warned of this as he studied why republics fail. He said, ``All republics fail.'' They fail because when people learn they can vote themselves money from the public treasury, all of the other priorities go out the window. They become totally self- focused, self-centered on what is in it for them, with no long-range vision, only parochial vision, no vision for the country as a whole, but only what is good for them. It is called self-centeredness. It is called selfishness. And we perpetuate it in this body by bringing bills to the floor that are resistant to amendments that say: Maybe this is not a priority right now.

I would bet if you polled the American public and said, we are going to run another $1.4 trillion deficit this year, we probably would not want to spend $12 million telling politicians how to stay elected. We probably would not.

The fact is, it is major universities that get this small amount of money are in debt in excess of $50 billion.

They have plenty of money to fund this if they wanted, but they don't do it because they are getting from the person who is out of work. They are getting from the person who didn't get that job because the economy is on its back, because we are borrowing $1.4 trillion and competing with the capital that is required to create a job. It is just a small amount of money. It by itself won't make any difference. But supporting this amendment will build on confidence with the American people that says, he is right, we ought to be about priorities.

We ought to be about doing what is most important first and cutting out what is least important because the times call for discipline so we don't further hamstring the generation of children to which this young lady belongs. If you take $5 or $6 million and do it once, pretty soon, if you have done it 10 times, you have $60 million. You do it another 10 times, you have $600 million. Pretty soon, we have billions of dollars we are not spending because it is low priority and we are not borrowing it against our children. All of a sudden, the value of the dollar starts to rise. Confidence around the world in the dollar starts increasing. Competition for capital by the Federal Government competing in the private sector for the capital goes down. The cost of capital goes down. Credit flows and job opportunities are created. We don't connect that because we have always done it that way. We have a budget allocation. As long as we are under that budget allocation, everything is fine.

Where is the leadership in our country today that says we are going to model a leadership that we know the American people expect of us-- make hard choices, take the heat to eliminate things that are lower priority so that we can preserve the priority of this child and those of her generation? The fact is, that leadership is nonexistent. There is no reason for anyone to doubt why confidence in the Congress is at alltime lows. We are not realists. We are not listening.

The message out there, the No. 1 concern with fear isn't health care; it is economic. Am I going to have a job tomorrow? Am I going to be able to pay my bills? Will I be able to pay my mortgage? There are thousands of items in every appropriations bill just like this one, just like that amendment that we could eliminate tomorrow. It might create some small hardship but nothing compared to the hardship we are transferring to the following generation.

I have no doubt of the outcome of the votes on my amendments. I understand we are a resistant, recalcitrant body that refuses to recognize the will and direction of the American people in terms of commonsense priorities. I understand that. But what we must understand is, they are awake now, they are listening, and they are watching. It is time to respond to the desires of the American people and stop responding to the special interests of those who are getting money from the Federal Government that are low priority in terms of what really counts and really matters for our future.

I have one other amendment we will be voting on that transfers money to increase the money at the inspector general. It will not slow down the conversion of the Hoover Building at all. We have been told that. But it will help to make good government.

Part of our problem in government is about 10 percent of everything we do is pure waste, pure fraud, or pure duplication. If we are going to invest dollars in something, we ought to invest in the transparency and accountability mechanisms we have already set up.

I find myself encouraged by the attitude of the American people, yet discouraged by the attitude of my colleagues. Nobody wants to take and make the hard choices, the hard choices that say we are going to get heat if we start prioritizing. The easiest is to do nothing. The easiest is to continue to let the programs run whether they are high priority or not. That is easy. But America is having a rumble right now. The ground is shaking. The American people are paying attention. They are going to watch votes just like this one. Then we are going to be called to account as to, why won't you make priority choices, why won't you take the heat.

If there ought to be any political science study done, it is, why are Members of Congress such cowards? That is the thing we ought to study. We ought to study why we refuse to do the right thing because it puts our job at risk. We ought to be doing the right thing when it does put our job at risk and when it doesn't.

I will finish up by reminding us of what our oath is. Our oath never mentions our State. Our oath never mentions our special interest. Our oath never mentions our campaign contributors. What our oath mentions is that we are Senators of the United States--not from Oklahoma, not from Delaware, not from Maryland, not from Ohio. We are Senators of the United States; we just happen to be from those places. Our oath is to the long-term best interest of the country, never a parochial interest.

As you go through these bills, what you see are parochial interests trumping the long-term best interests of the country. That is not to demean the fine job the Senator from Maryland has done. She came in with the number that was given her. There is no question that she probably made some tough choices as she did that. But we haven't made enough. This kind of increase in this kind of bill is absurd. It is obscene. It is obscene at a time when the average family's income is declining, their ability to have the freedom to make choices, relaxed choices about what they do versus very stern choices about what is a necessity. We have not gotten the message.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is a straightforward amendment that actually increases the funding for the IG. One of our weaknesses is waste, fraud, and abuse. According to GSA, this will not affect the renovations whatsoever at the Hoover Building. We are simply transferring funds.

I understand a point of order is going to be made against this amendment. But if my colleagues want control and have accurate work done by our IGs, we need to fund them appropriately, and this amendment is intended to do that.

Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable section of the Budget Act with respect to my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized and that following my remarks Senator Casey be recognized for 10 minutes, followed by Senator Sessions, who would control up to 40 minutes.

Mr. President, I am going to spend a few minutes talking about the bill we just passed. I decided to save my remarks so my colleagues wouldn't miss their planes and trains and could get out of here and not delay them prior to the vote.

I listened intently to Senator Sessions and his discussion prior to the vote, and I wish to raise a word of caution for the American public. What we just did in the Senate was to set the government on a course to double in 5 years. The size of the Federal Government will double in 5 years if we keep doing what we have been doing on appropriations bills. There is a 16.9-percent increase in this bill, with a truly negative inflation rate as far as the

basket for American people and how we look at that.

I had several amendments in the bill. All but one of them became compromised after it came out. That is not necessarily the problem of Senator Alexander or Senator Feinstein. But what we have done in this bill is prioritize the environment over the violation of our borders. We have hamstrung our Border Patrol, and the consequence of that is we are going to continue to see drugs, we are going to continue to see these ``rape trees,'' through the bringing in illegally of people and then the people being brought in illegally to the country being raped.

This bill had 540 earmarks--71 pages of earmarks. We had an amendment in the bill for competitive bidding. The language came out of the conference report that competitive bids would be applied to everybody except people with earmarks. The American people need to understand what that means. That means the well-heeled in this country who have a connection to a Member of this body get a benefit, and so it doesn't even have to be competitively bid. That doesn't even address the question of whether it is a priority for the country. It addresses the question of whether we may be paying two or three times what we should be paying, even if it is a good project.

So I raise the question, for the people who are listening, and I say that what we are doing is wrapping a cord around ourselves and then tying the knot so we get to a point where we cannot fix what ails us. If you look at the U.S. dollar and the lack of confidence, and you look at the meetings that have been going on by people who purchase our debt, they are trying to create a new reserve currency. That is ongoing. They do not deny it. What will happen to us is, we will be on an unsustainable course, where we can't pay the $800 billion of interest in 10 years. That interest is based on an interest rate of 4 percent, not at zero percent today.

It could very well be that in 2019, the largest portion of the expenditures of the Federal Government--well over 45 percent--will be interest. What does that mean?

What does that mean to the average family in this country? What does that mean to your children, Mr. President? What does that mean to my grandchildren? What are the consequences?

Let me explain the conservative consequences and then I will finish. If you take everybody alive in this country today who is under 20 and you add everybody who is going to be born over the next 20 years--so we have everybody who is under 40, 20 years from now--here is what they are going to owe. These are not my numbers. These are actuarial numbers that have been certified. Every one of them is going to owe $1.119 million. They are either going to be responsible for that portion of the real debt or that portion of the unfunded liabilities for which they will never gain any benefit.

So ask yourself: If we keep doing what we just did in this body, what are we doing to our kids and our grandkids?

We are absolutely abandoning the heritage of this country, and we do it cavalierly. I mean, there were 28 votes against this 16-percent increase on one bill. Only 28 votes. Only 28 Senators said a 16.9- percent increase in spending is too much, when most families' income has declined by 3.7 percent this year.

We don't get it. I don't understand why we continue to do it. I am as frustrated as the people outside this body. But I can tell you, there is a day of reckoning coming and not just for our country financially but for the Members of this body. The American people are going to wake up, they are going to see we have mortgaged their future, their children's future, and their grandchildren's future, and they are going to say: Enough. The hope would be it will not be too late.

With that, I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I will be recognized for the remainder of our time. Would the Chair tell me when I have 1 minute left, please?

Mr. President, I listened the last few weeks on the Senate floor to many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I happen to be one of two physicians in the Senate. I still practice. I saw 11 patients Monday morning in an office in Muskogee, OK. I saw some sick kids, saw some women, some senior citizens, saw people having difficulties with pregnancies. I was kind of struck, as I watched and listened, to where we are in the country today.

We have a lot of problems in front of us, including the financial problems, our unemployment problems, the fact that we need to get our economy up and going. But I saw something my staff sent me that explained and gave a great big, huge answer to me. It became crystal clear. It was a guy holding a poster. I have added a few things to his poster, but in essence here is what it said.

On the top line it said: ``Medicare is broke.'' That is true. We all know that. It runs a negative cash balance, total negative cash balance starting in 2017, probably 2014. So 5 years from now, the vast majority of the funds from Medicare are not going to come from Medicare taxes. They are going to come from the citizens of this country through their regular taxes or we are going to borrow it from our kids.

The States are broke because they have Medicaid, and they are all struggling mightily right now, so Medicaid is broke.

What else is broke? The Post Office is broke. We know that. We just gave them $2 billion to get them out of their cash flow, but they are going to run about an $8 billion, $10 billion deficit next year.

The census is broke. We know that. It is going to cost 2\1/2\ times what it

cost the last time, and we are not even sure we are going to get an accurate census.

The highway trust fund is broke. We are getting ready to have a bill on the Senate floor in the very next few days or weeks that will extend the life of the highway trust fund. It is going to take $248 billion from our grandkids with a wink and a nod and say it is not broke. It is not any different from what we were trying to do on the Medicare doctor fix, on the reimbursement fix. So the highway trust fund is broke.

Fannie Mae is broke. Freddie Mac is broke. Medicare is broke. Medicaid is broke. The country is broke.

Here in the midst of all of this, we are getting ready to add a $1 trillion program run by the very same individuals who have Medicare broken, Medicaid broken, highway trust fund broken, Post Office broken, census broken, Fannie Mae broken, Freddie Mac broken, and we are supposed to trust us to design a system to fix the problem.

There is no question there are some problems in health care. The biggest problem is that it costs too much. I see that every day when I practice medicine. I have seen it for 25 years. It is exacerbated now.

Most people won't agree with my assessment, but one of the reasons the costs are so high isn't just technology--and certainly it isn't the insurance industry--it is the demands we place on the system through Medicare and Medicaid. I get to experience that every day--the added costs that go into the health care system because I have to do something the way Medicare wants me to do it, not the way I would do it normally. I have to cross the T's and dot the I's for Medicare.

It is ironic that right now, as we are sitting here, there is a hearing going on on strategies to address Medicare fraud. We have a bill that is getting ready to come to the floor that doesn't have any of that in it. Why didn't we have that hearing 6 months ago when we asked for it? Or a year ago when we asked for it? Two years ago, we did have one in my subcommittee, where we found out that HHS doesn't even know how much Medicaid fraud there is, and they underestimate their Medicare fraud by 50 percent, according to GAO. We are almost at 20 percent fraud. And now we are having a hearing, after a bill is written, to find out new strategies for it.

Why? It is because there is no defense that we could ever muster or maintain against the accusation that we have allowed a system to have this kind of fraud in it. Yet we are supposed to turn around and ask the American people to trust us to fix what is wrong in health care. There are significant things wrong in Medicare. It costs way too much. It doesn't have to cost way too much. But we have put that into the system.

Let me, for a minute, defend American medicine. If you are sick anywhere in the world, the best place to get sick is in this country. We have a 30- to 50-percent higher cancer cure rate than anybody in the world. If you have an acute coronary syndrome, heart attack, or stroke, we have the best hope for the best outcome and the best survivability for you. If, in fact, you have an orthopedic problem, whether it is a fractured hip or leg, or you need a new joint, this is the best place in the world to get the best care with the least complications, with the best outcome of anyplace in the world.

There have been a lot of people critical of the bad parts in health care, and they should be. But what we are about to do is to damage the very best health care in the world to fix what is wrong with that system. So rather than to preserve what is good, we are going to take over--we are already at 61-percent government-run health care; 61 percent of all health care is run by the government today. Add it up-- whether it be military health care, Indian health care, VA health care, Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP, or the Federal employees health care, FEHBP. Sixty-one percent of health care is run through the government today. You may say, how in the world can we have the cost go out of line? It is because we have health care bills that will not address the real costs.

Instead of having a monstrous bill that costs $1 trillion--actually far more than that, about $2.8 trillion the full first 10 years it is in effect. Rather than doing that, we ought to fix the easy things first, such as the fraud in Medicare. It is not hard to fix. We pay and chase. We have known that for years. We tried to do something about it, but we cannot do anything about it. We assume that when you bill Medicare, you bill them right and we pay you. If you don't do it right, we try to figure out, rather than having active live intervention to determine that you did a certified procedure or used a certified product. So we could save, in health care, $60 to $70 billion a year just in government programs if we fix the fraud.

We can save another $100 billion a year if, in fact, we incentivize or change the tort system in this country, because what we know is that 80 percent of all lawsuits are frauds in health care. They all get dropped. They never get paid attention to. But they get filed, hoping to extort money out of our insurance companies that cover doctors. Of the remaining 20 percent, 89.9 percent of those are found in favor of the providers. So what that says is less than 3 percent of all the suits that are filed are legitimate, and those poor people who win the 3 percent--60 percent of the money doesn't go to them; it goes to the system.

What else could we do? We can change the Tax Code so that if you are an individual, you get the same tax benefit that corporations do when they buy their employees health insurance. No, we won't do that. We have not done that in this bill. So if, in fact, you are well-to-do or you have the benefit of employer-paid health care, you get $2,700 worth of health benefit a year; but if you are a single man or woman trying to raise a child, and are self-employed, you get $100 worth of tax benefit. So we totally side with those who are well-to-do, in terms of the tax benefits in this country, rather than help the people out there trying to buy individual health insurance.

We can create a transparent market. We can mandate tomorrow that for all insurance sold you have to put out the quality, your payment terms, and you have to put out the prices you will pay, and the same with every provider in health care, so that you can know what you are going to get, what it will cost, and the likelihood of the outcome beforehand.

Finally, we could encourage the sale of insurance products across State lines to force competition into the insurance market. There is no question they need competition. They have it inside, but it is mandated down to the State level. So the only way you will ever create real competition and force competition in health care is to make them all compete against each other, which will give you the ability to buy what you want for your family, what you think you need, and get the care you want, at a price you can afford. We are not going to do that with this plan or any of the plans that have been offered. We are going to see the cost of insurance go up, not down.

Finally, we could have group health associations, where businesses can come together across State lines and join an association and have buying power in the insurance industry. That has been blocked in this body for 4 years.

So we can do four or five things, and none of those would cost any money. None of that would require us to steal money from Medicare Advantage and Medicare to create a new program, rather than to fund the sustainable portion of Medicare. So as we look at health care--and there is no question we have problems, and I want to see them fixed--it is important to put it into perspective. We have failed at everything we have done, in terms of being effective stewards, when it comes to health care programs through the Federal Government. They are neither efficient nor highly effective. We are getting ready to ask the American people to trust us with another couple trillion dollars over the next 10 years to create a new system, demonstrating the fact that we don't know how to run and won't be responsible for the systems we have. We are going to create a new system, and the idea is to just trust us. Our actions which have demonstrated a lack of financial stewardship of the health care programs today ought to give us all great caution that somehow the Federal Government knows what it is doing when it comes to health care. The proof is that we absolutely have no idea what we are

doing. That is why there is an $85 trillion unfunded liability on Medicare. That is why there are over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities when it comes to Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and SCHIP that we will never be able to take care of, which we will shove over onto our kids and grandkids. But trust us, we can get it right this time.

We can create 88 new programs--that is what is in this--new bureaucracies, new government programs, with 150,000 new employees. And if you think that 150,000 employees won't stand between you and your provider, you have another thought coming. They are going to write rules and regulations that will cripple the ability for you to make decisions about your health care in your family. It is going to slow your access to health care and raise your cost of health care.

There are ways to get out of this. There are ways to lower the costs. There are ways to not grow the government and make more health care available to hundreds of thousands and millions of American citizens. The first health care bill introduced was the Patients Choice Act, filed in this Congress by myself and Richard Burr. It saves money rather than costing money. It saves $70 billion in the first 10 years. It saves the States $1 trillion in the first 10 years. It is the opposite of what we have coming. It is a patient-centered plan rather than a government-centered plan. It puts patients in charge rather than government bureaucrats and Senators. The last thing I want to happen to my patients and me--I am 61 years old, and it will not be long before I am eligible for Medicare--is somebody in Washington making a decision about what my family and I can get. And whether I can afford it is up to me. But what I can get, and where I can get it, ought to be totally and 100 percent left in my hands as an individual who is free in this country.

I have one final point. In this bill is a mandate that you have to buy insurance. You have to buy insurance. If you own your own home, you don't have to buy homeowners insurance. If you don't want to have general liability on your property, you don't have to do it. If you choose not to drive a car, you don't have to buy auto insurance. By the way, 25 percent of the people who own a car don't buy it or they buy it and they cancel it. We know that. That was the latest statistic. So we are going to tell everybody in America that you no longer have the freedom to make a choice, that if you have the assets and you choose not to buy health insurance, you are going to get a fine--a misdemeanor--from the Federal Government. We are going to take away your freedom to make a decision you think is in your best interest.

I note that I have a limited amount of time. With that, I call on the American public to pay very close attention not to what we say and are going to do in the next few weeks in Washington but look at what we have done in the past. I don't think you can trust us with health care the way we are going. We have not demonstrated we can do that. The person to trust on health care is you. We can fix what is wrong without bringing another 20 percent of health care into the Federal Government and shackling our children forever.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I believe we are going to be considering the Homeland Security conference report. I want to spend a few minutes talking about that so that the American public might realize what we are doing. This year's spending totals have averaged, on individual appropriations bills, anywhere from a high of 24 percent to a low of about .6 percent, on one bill that had received twice its annual appropriation in the stimulus. We have of course a conference report that is $42.7 billion. That is a 6.5, almost 7-percent increase over last year, the same the year before, and a 23-percent increase the year before that. There is no question, homeland security is an important part.

The issue I want to raise with my colleagues and the American people is, we had inflation of 1.5 percent last year. We do have one bill, one bill that has come in at inflation or less. All the rest are averaging around 10, 11, 12 percent increases. We ought to be concerned about what the Congress is doing in terms of increasing the spending in light of the fact that we have just finished a year in which we had a published $1.4 trillion deficit. But those are Enron numbers. That is Enron accounting because we didn't recognize all the money we borrowed from trust funds that don't go to the public debt, that are internal IOUs that our children nevertheless will still have to pay back.

The real reason I want to talk about this bill is because it purports to have an amendment on competitive bidding. I will grant that the amendment is better than no amendment, but the American people should be outraged at what we have done on competitive bidding in this bill. What we have said is we want competitive bidding--except for our friends. If you are connected to a Senator through an earmark or if you are connected through a grant process, what we have done is taken a large number of grants and directed them specifically without competitive bidding. What does that mean to the process? What does that do to the integrity of the process? It says if you are well heeled and well connected, then in fact you can have what you want on a noncompetitive basis, because that is what the amendment in the bill says. But if in fact you are not, then you will have to compete on the basis of merit and price like everybody else in the country.

Once again we have earned our lack of endorsement by the American public because of what we have said: ``Unless otherwise authorized by statute without regard to the reference statute.'' Those are fancy words for saying we want competitive bidding on everything except earmarks and the congressional directive we have in this bill.

That means if you have a business and you have an earmark, you didn't have to be the best business to get

that, to supply the Federal Government whatever it is. If you are a grant recipient and got earmarked, you didn't have to be the one with the greatest need, No. 1, or the most efficient way to generate the dollars through that grant. What it does is it puts on its ear any semblance of fair play, No. 1; and, No. 2, it takes away the initiative for everybody else who now is going to get a competitive bid. What it is going to do is drive a greater demand for earmarks in the future.

We ought to ask ourselves the following question: If this is taxpayer money and our grandchildren's money--because 43 percent of this bill is going to be borrowed--is it morally correct, is it intellectually honest that we would say: If you are connected, if you have an ``in,'' you don't have to meet the same level of responsibility and accountability as those who are well connected? I think that is a great question for us to debate.

Unfortunately, a real competitive bidding amendment was not agreed to in this bill that would put all of it at competitive bidding. Senators have the right to say we ought to do something. But they don't necessarily have the right to say we ought to do something and this person ought to benefit from it. It is not ours to give away. When we do things as we have done in this bill to protect those most well heeled, those most well connected to the Congress, by saying everybody else is going to play under one set of rules but if, in fact, you have a friend or a connection or an earmark or a directed grant, you don't have to play by those rules, not only is it unfair to everybody else who does not have to play by those rules, it actually undermines the value of what we do.

On the basis of that and the spending levels, I plan on opposing the Homeland Security conference report. My hope is that we will get better, that in fact we will not play games with the American public, that we will not say our friends get to get treated differently than anybody else in this country and that every dollar we spend we can assure to the American taxpayer is going to go to the best firm to do that based on a competitive bid so we actually get the best value for the hard-earned dollars that are being spent.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are about 10 minutes away from a vote on the energy and water conference report. I wanted to put forward one very cogent reason for voting against this bill.

This bill hides from the American people information to which they are entitled. There was clearly accepted by unanimous consent an amendment that said the reports in that bill will be made available to all Senators and all the citizens of this country--and rightly so-- unless it had a national security implication for not exposing that information.

The best government is the one that is the most open. The best government is the one in which people have trust. By bringing this bill to the floor out of conference and dropping the transparency amendment, the transparency section where one can actually see what is going on in Washington, where one can actually see where their money is being spent, where one can actually see the information that a select group of Senators see but other Senators do not, as well as the American people--if, in fact, one can see that, that breeds accountability in Washington.

If my colleagues, in fact, vote for this conference report, what they are saying is they want to keep the American people in the dark; they do not want them to see what we are doing; they do not want them to see how we are doing it; they do not want them to see why we are doing it. They want the elite position of making a judgment without being held accountable.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report.

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

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Iowa will yield for a question.

On our time.

Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa listed five diseases. I think he mentioned prostate cancer and breast cancer. Can he give us a reference of where he gets that data? Having practiced medicine for 25 years, most of my prostate cancer patients and breast cancer patients would want to know what the prevention is to prevent those diseases. Since we don't have anything in scientific literature right now that says that, I was wondering if he could refer us to the data.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I plan on taking about 10 minutes of our time.

I serve on the HELP Committee with the distinguished chairman. There is no question we have not emphasized prevention in this country, but there is a reason we have not. We do not pay for it. Medicare does not pay for it. The insurance companies follow what Medicare does.

We have heard some pretty good claims this morning in terms of the HELP bill. I sat through almost 3 weeks of markup on that bill. I don't believe there is anybody in Congress who does not want us to change the way we look at prevention because there is no way we can control health care costs unless we both try to prevent chronic disease and also manage the chronic disease we have.

One of the reasons we have more chronic disease than other countries is because we keep people with chronic disease alive a lot longer. They let them die. They ration the care out, and they determine what the value of their life is. With a chronic disease, eventually they quit treating them. The numbers get skewed because we do a pretty good job. Even though we did not prevent it, we do a wonderful job, and we can actually do far better in managing chronic disease.

What the Senator and the HELP committee put out is a government- centered bill. Let me give an example. Duke University set up a clinic for heart failure patients. They were having phenomenal results. These are all Medicare patients, class III, class IV, class V heart patients. They dropped hospital admissions 27 percent. They shut it down. Why did they shut it down? Medicare would rather pay--because they are not flexible, they will not recognize prevention--they shut down a clinic that was saving them $100 million a year, even though it cost about a significant portion of that, 10 percent or so, to run the clinic. They would rather spend the $90 million than to pay for prevention. So what was a great clinic--keeping people out of the hospital, maintaining their chronic disease. Medicare did that.

That is the reason I am very opposed to the bill--not the principles of the bill but the bill that came out of committee. The bill that came out of our committee creates 88 new government programs--88. Think about it. What do we want in health care? What we want in health care is to be able to determine our own future, to determine our own doctor, and to be able to afford to buy the health care our families need. That is what we want. We create 88 new Federal Government programs managing our health care, and that freedom to choose, that freedom to make a judgment is going to go out the window.

The other points the Senator mentioned, he talked about increasing to 30 percent the ability of performance bonuses for people to get into reduction plans, wellness plans. He mentioned Safeway. They can spend 21 percent under HIPAA now. Safeway's testimony was, give us the flexibility everybody else in the country has and let's go up to 50 percent. We don't trust them to do that, even though Safeway has had no increase in health care costs in the last almost now 5 years because they have truly incentivized prevention.

He mentioned workforce development, and he mentioned all these incentives to help people become primary care doctors. They are not going to become primary care doctors. Do you know why? I am a primary care doctor. They are not going to pay them. The reason we have a disproportionate number of specialists versus primary care doctors in this country is because there is a 350-percent payment differential. How do you think that came about? Medicare created that differential.

If we want more primary care doctors, then what we have to do is pay people to go into primary care, and they will come running because it is the best place in the world to practice medicine. They get to care for entire families. They get to manage every type of conceptual disease one can think of, and the rewards are out of this world. But when the average medical student comes out of medical school owing $170,000, and their pay is one-fourth of somebody who spends 1 or 2 more years in training, there is no reason to think why they don't all go into additional training so they can be compensated at a level that matches the debt and the sacrifice they put in. They average 8 years of medical school and residency. We don't have many other people who have that kind of training. Yet Medicare created the shortage we have today by limiting the payment to primary care physicians.

The reason I make that point is the plans that are coming to the Senate floor are totally government centered. They are totally government managed. They are totally government created. He talked about sidewalks and bike paths. In that bill, we set up $10 billion a year for concrete, supposedly for wellness. I can think of a whole lot better things. We can put $10 billion in NIH and do a whole lot more in terms of savings for this country in terms of our health care.

Where do I agree with the chairman? We will never control our costs in health care and we will never make health care affordable for us as a nation or individually until we manage the chronic disease we have out there officially and until we incentivize the prevention of it. He is right on that. But there are two approaches to doing that. One says the government is going to do all of it, and the other says maybe we could incentivize individuals in the public to make good decisions for themselves. One costs a whole lot of money; the other does not cost any.

Let me tell you how well the government does. Go to any School Lunch Program you want to today. Go look at it. Look at what we feed our kids at breakfast and lunch, and then ask yourself: No wonder our kids are unhealthy. We are feeding them a high-fat, high-carbohydrate, simple- sugar, simple-starch meal. We are creating, through the government School Lunch Program and breakfast program, the very obesity the Senator says he wants to stop.

Then look at the food stamp purchases we incentivize. There are no limits on them--a government program. Then look at the people on the Food Stamp Program--and this is no discrimination toward them at all; they need the help--but look at the choices they make. There is no effort to limit to only buy what are good foods with food stamp money rather than junk food that, in fact, enhances chronic disease.

There are a lot of ways to approach it, but if we look at what the government is doing now--what does it do? In health care, what does the government do right now that is effective and efficient? Nothing.

The chairman talked about the fact that Medicare is going to go broke. It is. In 5\1/2\ years, the Medicare trust fund will be belly up. Nobody disputes that point. The Medicare trustees are saying that. We have all these problems in Medicare. Why don't we fix those? We have a full 15 percent, at a minimum, of fraud in Medicare. Where is the fix? Why don't we fix it? Instead, we are going to bring to the floor 88 new government programs, a government-centric run health care system that is going to defeat and destroy the best health care system in the world.

It is not the most efficient, but there is no question if you are sick, this is the best place in the world to get sick. If you have cancer, your cure rate is 40 to 50 percent better than anywhere else

in the world. If you have heart disease, your outcome is better than any other place in the world. Prevention is key, but as we try to fix the problems in health care, our first goal ought to be ``do no harm'' to what is good about American health care.

I yield for my colleague from Tennessee and note I have consumed over 10 minutes. I apologize to him for that.

Thousands.

Mr. President, we are at this point not because an amendment was not accepted. We are at this point because of the nature of the amendment that was not accepted. I recognize my colleagues for the good work they did on this bill. It is the lowest increase of any appropriations bill that has come to the Senate floor. But the problem is very straightforward and very simple: Why would the House not accept an amendment that said transparency for the American public is what we are after? We have to question that. And why would our conferees sign on to a conference report that did not have transparency? That is the question.

There was an amendment that said the reports asked for out of this appropriations bill, unless they contain information related to the security and defense of this country, should be made public to all 70 Senators who are not on the Appropriations Committee but, more important, to the people of this country. I cannot understand; nobody can offer an argument on why you would not want to do that. Yet somehow it is not in the bill. How do we explain that? Is it because it is a Coburn amendment that it is not in the bill? Is it because there is something in the reports we do not want the American people to see? If that is the case, what is the problem? Where is the problem?

The reason I did not give unanimous consent on this bill coming to the floor is that I believe we ought to have a discussion about transparency. One of the things my friend, President Obama, was good at when he was here, and has said he is for as our President, is transparency. We teamed up and passed, along with Senator Carper and Senator McCain, the Transparency and Accountability Act. By the spring or summer of this year we will be able to see where every penny of our tax dollar goes, all the way down to subgrantee and subcontracting. That is real transparency.

The question before us is why would this body accept this conference report cloaked in secrecy?

I know Senators wanted this amendment. I am not accusing them of not wanting it. What I do not understand is why they would ever agree to a conference that did not have it in any bill we did? Why would we not let the American people see what we are doing? Why would we not want the people to see an annual report by the Department of Energy on their financial balances? That is one of the reports that is in here. Can somebody tell me why we would not want that? Who in the House would not want that? What is it we do not want the American people to see? A report by the Chief of Engineers on water resources? Why can't the American people see that? A report by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission identifying barriers to and its recommendations for streamlining for construction of new nuclear reactors? Why should not the American people see what the problems are and see what that report says? Why should that be cloaked, out of light, out of view, and away from the knowledge of the American people?

To me, there is either one of two explanations. One is they do not care about what the American people think about knowing what is going on in our government or there is something else going on inside one of these reports they do not want the American people to see. It is one of those two things. I don't know which it is. But what I believe is, it is unacceptable for us to pass a bill, a conference report, that has information in it that is not a risk for any of our national security issues to which the American people should not be privy.

I believe, if we vote for this conference report, what we are saying is we endorse it; we know it better. There are certain things that even though they don't relate to security, you are not smart enough, you don't have the insight, you don't have the wisdom, you don't have the knowledge to make a judgment.

I reject that, our Founders rejected that, and we as a body ought to reject it.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry:

It is true the Senator does have the last time, but is the unanimous consent agreement that the last 5 minutes is his?

I understand. I yield back my time.

I ask the unanimous consent be modified that I be given 3 minutes to speak prior to the start of that unanimous consent.

I wanted to answer a few of the points of the distinguished majority whip. The reason the Energy and Water bill is being held up is because the conference took out transparency that the people of this country need to see. It could easily be fixed by the majority agreeing that we will send that back, we will send a resolution back and ask the House to put the transparency back in. That is the purpose for it. It is not a delaying tactic. The fact is, we didn't defend what we actually voted for. That is the answer to the first question.

The unemployment benefit, we all want to extend it. We just want to pay for it. We don't want to charge it to our children. We want to get rid of some of the waste. We want to either take some money from the stimulus account and pay for it, but we do not want to charge the unemployment extension to our grandkids. We think you ought to make those hard choices.

Finally, on the cloture vote yesterday, as far as I could count, there are 60 of you and all you had to do was bring 60 votes to the floor, which you chose not to do. There were only three amendments that have been voted on on the Commerce, Justice, and State. I have three amendments pending. I agreed to have votes on them yesterday. Instead of having votes, we decided to do cloture, which was not achieved.

The final point that the Senator from Illinois makes, the very claim that we have no health care proposal--the first health care proposal that was filed and

published was my health care proposal that is a comprehensive health care proposal that saves the government money, covers more people than any of the bills we have today, saves $70 billion, saves the States $1 trillion, and solves most of the problems as far as access and cost, it covers people with any preexisting illness.

It is not we do not have a plan, it is that we couldn't get our plan agreed to or listened to.

I understand the frustration of my friend from Illinois; there is no question. We do want--we almost had an agreement yesterday to finish Commerce-Justice. There is no question. Everybody knew that. Then we decided to vote cloture.

I am happy to finish. We can finish it tomorrow if we can come to agreement on the amendments. We vote on the amendments and finish that bill tomorrow and finish this tomorrow. They can both be finished tomorrow easily, so it is not about structure; it is about growing the Federal Government, expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government and charging the cost of that to the next two generations. That is the objection. It is not about slowing the process.

I understand it is frustrating being in the majority when, in fact, there are minority rights, but when the amendments aren't agreed to, aren't allowed to have majority votes, then you can understand our predicament.

Will the Senator yield?

I have no objection.

Madam President, I listened off the floor to the debate of my colleagues. Many of the things that they identify as problems, I certainly agree with. Where we part company--having been in the health care field for over 25 years, and having practiced medicine during that period of time--is on the solutions they propose. Oftentimes, that will destroy the best of medicine that we have in America today and will render a larger government with less freedom in our country.

I want to address a couple of the issues. From the start, the assumption of those for the public option is that the government has done a good job with the health care programs they run today. I wanted to give a little history and put forth a little history.

There is no question that Medicare has benefited millions of Americans, and will continue to do so if we can figure out a way to pay for it, which is one of the sad things about the pay-fors in this bill--that we are going to borrow $500 billion and take another $500 billion out of Medicare and create another program, when Medicare is not funded. If you go through health care today in the country, 61 percent of all health care expenditures in this country go through the government. If 61 percent is already going through the government and we are having health care inflation at 7 or 8 percent, why is it that if we are so good in 61 percent of it, we still have these kinds of problems as a whole? And actually health care inflation inside government programs is higher than outside government programs, which proves the point that we should not eliminate health insurance companies, but we should make them more efficient and streamlined.

The assumption behind the public option is this: They look at Medicare and at the administrative costs of Medicare and say that is all it costs to run Medicare. Then they look at the 10(k)s, the profit and loss statements of the insurance industry, and say look how high that is. If you take all of the health care insurance industry as a percentage of the dollars spent in health care and look at their expenses and their profit and their costs for running their business, in terms of cost of capital, and compare it to the true cost of running Medicare, what you find is Medicare costs about 3 or 4 percent more to run than private health care.

Nobody could be more disturbed as a practicing physician than I am about wanting to rein in the abuses in the insurance industry. Their answer is to create competition with a government plan. I believe you create competition by creating real competition. A government plan, government option isn't competition. It is the elimination of any other market in health care. How do we know that? We know that the way people are going to sign up for a government plan is because it is going to be cheaper. If you take the same factors--for example, the 15-percent fraud rate in Medicare and Medicaid--and add that to the cost of the plan, what you are going to see is we are going to end up subsidizing the government plan to a greater extent than even CBO would put forward. I will have a report in the next couple weeks that will outline CBO's accuracy on health care costs since they have been scoring them since 1965. I can tell you right now that the record is atrocious. Sometimes they missed it by 15,000 percent. They underestimate what the costs are.

I want to share a story about two of my patients over the last 6 or 7 years.

I also want to share another story about somebody I talked to this week, whose son dropped out of medical school and chose to not go to medical school. He was accepted, but he chose not to go because of this very debate and the likelihood that the government will become more involved in health care.

The story I want to tell goes to the very real need that my colleagues were addressing, which is true changes in health insurance. Everybody in this body wants to address the cost issue because that issue is what is driving the problems with health care. If somebody doesn't have access, it is not because it is not available out there, it is because they don't have the money to buy the access. So cost becomes the first stumbling block. Whatever we do, the No. 1 thing we ought to do is try to decrease the costs associated with health care. How do we do that? Do we do that by modeling Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Indian health care, VA? Is that how we do it? Or can we do it in a way that will truly drive down the costs? There is no estimate out there about the actual cost reductions in the bills that are coming forward, either the Finance Committee bill or the HELP Committee bill. The HELP Committee bill actually raises the cost of health care. Should we be about figuring out how to lower costs? Let me give some examples.

Safeway has had no increase in health care costs for the last 4\3/4\ years. How did they do it? They created incentives for their employees to stay healthy. When I say incentives, they were paying their employees cash money to change their behavior. They are limited on how much they can do that by a law called HIPAA, and, in fact, if they could do more, then they actually could have had a marked decline in their health care costs.

Then there is a company called MedEncentive where they run the insurance program for communities' municipal employees. Everywhere they have been they have lowered the cost of health care. How do they do it? They incentivize doctors by paying them more and incentivize patients by agreeing to do what the doctor says by cutting off their deductible or lowering the cost of their prescriptions if, in fact, they will follow good practices, best practices in terms of their care.

There are other examples such as Asheville, NC, where they have had a marked decrease. On average, what we have seen is a 20 to 30-percent decrease in health care. There is not a government involved in any of that.

I want to go back. Why is it that we view a government option as the answer? Because we perceive that the government can do it more efficiently and we perceive that is the only way you force competition in the health insurance industry. I agree, there is no significant competition in the health insurance industry. But having the government compete in it versus forcing competition is where we divide and go away.

The second reason they want a government option is the following: If you are my age, in your early sixties, what is going to happen to you in Medicare is you are not going to have the same care that the people in the last 10 years have had because the reason they want a government option and the reason we want what is called a comparative effectiveness board is because the real reason for having a public option and a comparative effectiveness board is to mandate what can and cannot happen to you.

As a physician who has delivered thousands of babies and cared for every complication in gynecology and obstetrics one can imagine, as a physician who has cared for thousands of children from birth to high school, as a physician who has taken care of grandmas and grandpas in their elder years with complications from heart failure to cancer to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to pneumonia to anything else, what is going to happen is the options are going to be limited.

The ultimate undercurrent of why we need and want a public option is that we will eventually create a system where most of America, about 82 million people, who have private insurance today will be in that public option and they will decide what you can and cannot have, which is counterintuitive to how we allocate scarce resources everywhere else in the country. We do allow the forces of competition to allocate it, but it requires individual personal responsibility. It requires a transparent market, which I agree we do not have. It requires real competition, which I agree we do not have. But the answer is not another government program.

Now back to the two examples in my practice. I give these examples because I want people to see what is going to happen as the government becomes more and more involved in health care.

These are two patients I have cared for over 20 years each presented at different periods of time with no true signs or symptoms of significant disease other than the fact that having known these people for years, I sensed something was different. I ordered a test. It was denied by the insurance company. I managed to get my friends, who happen to have an MRI who also practice medicine on a not-for-profit basis, do an MRI on this one gentleman. It just so happens the gentleman had the same disease that Senator Kennedy recently succumbed to. No signs, no physical diagnosis.

The only thing that allowed me to query that was the art of medicine. Not the book training, not the gray hair, not the experience, but the gut of knowing and having seen and been experienced with a patient over a long period of time to say something has changed. In fact, the insurance company came back and paid for the MRI.

An identical thing happened about 4 months later with another individual. One of those individuals, by the way, is still alive. The other, unfortunately, succumbed.

So we do need real competition in the insurance industry. We need to make sure we create that. The debate between what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle offered tonight is how do you best do that. Do you do that by setting up a government program that is infinitely funded and will actually charge rates that will be under the true costs and will be just like another Medicare Program where we have an unfunded, long-term liability that our kids are going to have to pay for, close to $75 trillion? That is the worry. That is what the real debate is.

I thought I would spend a minute talking about can we fix health care without tremendously growing the size and scope of the Federal Government. You cannot even talk about health care until you are willing to talk about what we are doing today. What we are doing today and what we are going to be doing tomorrow, and, if this bill passes, what we are going to be doing for the next 20 years is borrowing a large percentage of the money we will spend from our grandkids. That is an unsustainable course. It is not one that we can achieve.

As we do that, we end up with youngsters such as this. If you cannot read this, it says: ``I'm already $38,375 in debt and I only own a dollhouse.'' That is a pretty stark statement. Here is a cute little girl on whom her parents have put a placard. Her parents obviously recognize that we are spending money we don't have on things we don't need.

I am not saying there isn't anybody in this body who doesn't want health care reform. Nobody probably wants it more than I do. It is the type and how we get there that is important and do we make her situation worse. Do we raise the amount of money we are borrowing to be able to fix a problem that is going to be a government-centered problem rather than a patient-centered focus?

Then we have this quote from Thomas Jefferson:

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can

prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people

under the pretense of taking care of them.

That is a pretty interesting statement and pretty insightful and foretelling because that is exactly where our Nation finds itself today--``wasting the labors of the people under the pretense'' that the government will take care of them.

In about 10 years, government spending is going to be about 35 percent to 40 percent of our economy, and that is if we make it in the next 10 years given the present financial difficulties we have. But if we think and ponder a little bit about what Jefferson had to say and we look at the Constitution, what we find is that through the last 20, 30, 40 years in this country, back to 1965, we started stepping outside the bounds

of the enumerated powers that our forefathers brought forth. We have ignored them. Consequently, now we have government program after government program and agency after agency and we cannot afford it. We are borrowing the money. Under the guise of taking care of U.S. citizens, we can rationalize it.

America's health care is the best in the world. It just happens to be the most expensive. There are lots of ways to drive that cost down that are not at all considered in the bills in front of the Congress. Incentivizing people to do the right thing, the best thing, incentivizing the elimination--do you realize that 80 percent of the cost of health care today is defensive medicine; that if you attacked it slightly, not by eliminating lawsuits but by eliminating frivolous lawsuits--let me give the details. Ninety percent of all the suits that are filed never go to court and never get settled and never get answered. In other words, they are extortion claims. There is not a real medical claim. There is not a real issue, and it is not carried forward. Of the 10 percent that are either settled or carried forward, 89 percent of those are decided in favor of the medical community. So that is 11 percent of 10 percent, which is 1 percent of the cases.

If, in fact, we did not have the 90 percent of the cases that are frivolous, that are extortion attempts, what we know is that we could save about--CBO says under their score with limited liability changes, $54 billion over the next 10 years. Other sources say it is closer to $74 billion, $75 billion. Madam President, $74 billion to $75 billion a year does a lot to help individuals in terms of free care, in terms of lowering the cost of care because, in fact, every insurance company in the country is paying for that care.

Finally, I will make one other point, and it is this. What most Americans do not recognize is that in this new bill that is coming out of the Finance Committee, there is a significant number of taxes. Actually, you are going to recognize the fourth tax on health care in this country. Right now you pay income taxes and a large portion of that income tax is now paying for Medicare and Medicaid--57 percent of it and 43 percent we are borrowing.

The second tax you pay is a Medicare tax of 1.45 percent and your employer pays 1.45 percent of every dollar you earn no matter how much you earn.

The third tax you pay is your private health insurance, whether you buy it through your employer or you buy it yourself, costs $1,700 more per year because of the underpayment for the cost of health care for Medicare and Medicaid. So the cost of actually purchasing your health care goes up by about $150 a month per family because we underpay the true cost of care under Medicare and Medicaid, and they are both broke.

Now we have a fourth tax of which 50 percent is going to be levied on people from $40,000 to $140,000 a year, billions and billions of dollars of new taxes.

Then we have taxes on the insurance industry. I don't have any problem with that--taxes on medical devices, taxes on PhRMA. But who is going to pay those taxes? Those taxes are going to get filtered down to the increased cost of health care. When we pay a tax when we go to a store to buy something, we pay that tax on top of the price.

So the groceries or the TV or whatever it did cost--what we thought it cost--it would cost that plus tax. That tax, in terms of the insurance industry, in terms of the Medicare, in terms of the drug industry, in terms of the medical device industry, in terms of PhRMA, is going to get passed on, causing an increase in cost. That does not include the tax you will incur if you choose not to buy health insurance because you think you are healthy or you want to self-insure yourself. You are going to pay a tax for that. Oh, by the way, if you happen to have a great health care plan or maybe a moderate health care plan, the way the bill is written, you are eventually going to pay a tax because it is going to be too good a plan. So we are all going to have four taxes on health care.

I wish to make one other comment. We all traveled during the month of August and we met with our constituents. This is the HELP bill that came out of the committee after 3 weeks of hard work. This is not the complete bill that the Senate will be considering. This is just part of the bill, and it is 840-some pages long. The standard protocol in committees, if you vote a bill out of committee and you have changes to it, what you do is put a modified bill on the floor--a substitute bill when the bill comes to the floor. Well, there are 85 changes to this bill that have not been approved by the committee. Yet this is the committee bill.

So not only do we have a debate that is erroneous in terms of the direction it is taking--in creating a larger government, taking away individual freedom, individual choice, limiting one's availability of insurance, increasing premiums, increasing taxes, and taking away an individual's ability to choose--we also have a bill that has been modified, outside the rules of the Senate, 85 times versus the bill I voted on in committee. That shouldn't surprise us, however, because of the way we are handling health care.

So I will sum up with just a couple other points. I don't believe there is an American out there who doesn't think we need to do something about making health care more affordable, more available, and fairer in its treatment. I don't think there is an American who doesn't agree that we have a lot of waste in the health care system that can be eliminated. I don't think there is a physician out there who doesn't think we need to make some changes in terms of competitiveness in insurance and how that interferes with the decisionmaking by physicians and other caregivers. But I also don't think it is truly appreciated that in this country, if you are sick, you are going to get the best treatment anywhere in the world. It is just that it costs too much.

So how do we address that? Do we address that by growing the Federal Government and creating in this bill 88 new government programs with the bureaucracies that come with it or do we enable people to have the freedom to choose, to make their own choice about what they want and they need? With the finance bill, we are going to tell you what you have, we are going to tell you what the minimum is, we are going to limit your choices, and we are going to see a run toward either a regional co-op plan or a public plan.

But there is no question that what we are going to see is government- centered involvement in what we do and how we do it. That may be the direction we ultimately go. But the loss that comes with that is the loss of freedom, a loss of choice, and a diminished demand for personal responsibility and accountability, which is the very thing this young lady is counting on us doing the opposite of.

We are going to double our debt in the next 5 years. We are going to triple it in the next 10 years. It is going to be worse than that because we are spending money like drunken sailors. What do we owe the generations who follow us? What is it that we owe them? Do we owe them the heritage that was given to us? Are we going to transfer that heritage on, or are we going to ignore it?

In terms of health care, what is the best thing for our country in the long term? Can we take on another $1.3 trillion of government at a conservative estimate, especially when you count what is going to happen with what is called SGR--the physician payment reform? Can we take on $1.3 trillion? Will it only be $1.3 trillion? Will we move another 10 percent of our GDP to the government? Because that is what we are doing. At what point in time does the American experiment quit working?

I look forward to the debate on health care. The plans before us will raise premiums, decrease care, limit choice, and bankrupt our grandkids. By saying no to that plan, it doesn't mean you don't want to fix health care. There are some great plans out there to fix health care that don't cost money; that, according to CBO and others, will give the same results but will not create the massive new Federal bureaucracies and take away personal freedom to make decisions about you and your children and your family based on what your needs are, what your perception is, and what your ability is.

Madam President, I thank you for the time tonight, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.