Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I object.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I say to the Senator, I know you want to make a motion. But it is important that you and our colleagues know what we are asking for. We are not asking to pass a bill tonight. We are asking to move the bill into the debate process so that the American people can find out more about where we are and how this Guarantee Act and this Stop the Raid Act can secure their future. I yield back to the Senator to make the motion.

Mr. DeMINT. Exactly right. We will also be honest about telling the American people we have not been saving the money, but we are going to start saving their money and we are going to figure out a way to go back and get what has been borrowed from Social Security and put it back so that Social Security will be there for your children and mine and our grandchildren.

Mr. DeMINT. We have been waiting for several days to do this. We will keep the time.

Mr. DeMINT. It is definitely an honest accounting bill. Right now this money goes on the table and the Government secretly sweeps it away and spends it.

Mr. DeMINT. Only if we slow our spending as a government.

Mr. DeMINT. This bill alone would not change anyone's benefits. In fact, it includes, as yours does, a guarantee. People will continue to get the benefit they have been promised. Only part of their benefit would be paid by the traditional system and part from real money. Our hope is, as you mentioned before, this is a first step. We need to move past the first step of saving the $775 billion and go back and get the Government to pay back what they have already borrowed from Social Security, invest that in those accounts and let them earn interest, and it grows. It is a large step toward solving the future problems of Social Security. It is going to take several steps to fix it, but this is the most important first step. If we cannot stop spending Social Security on other things we cannot go to the American people and honestly tell them we have a solution, not if we cannot even stop spending it on something else.

Mr. DeMINT. Right now the largest tax most Americans pay is the 12.5 percent for Social Security. That is thousands of dollars for the average American family every year. It comes into the Social Security system. It is credited to a trust fund. Then it is spent either on Social Security benefits or spent on other things. We have made Americans believe we are saving that money for them, but it is all passing through. The only thing that is in the Social Security trust fund is IOUs. Our President, who has been a leader on this issue, actually went and opened the file cabinet where these IOUs are. The problem, Senator, as you know, is we cannot pay future benefits from IOUs. But we can from real money if we start saving it. There is nothing risky about saving this money in Treasury notes so it cannot be spent on other things. But you asked an important question. Right now, the Government owns the Social Security benefit and politicians control it. If we start saving Social Security in personal accounts--we are not talking about taking it out of the Social Security system. It is still just as much a part of the Social Security system as what we have today, only it is real money and people own it, which means they have a legal right to it, which they do not today. In the future, politicians cannot build their whole election campaign around frightening seniors that we are going to take their Social Security.

Mr. DeMINT. Right. We are going to take it off the table and save it. So the whole point is, if you want to keep spending that money as a Congress, we are going to have to recognize it as debt and admit to the American people that we are spending more than we told them we were spending.

Mr. DeMINT. I have had people back home, when we are talking about saving Social Security and putting it in personal accounts, tell me that is what they thought was already happening. They thought we were saving their money because we talk about a trust fund. But the more people find out about the truth, when we say there is not any money in the trust fund, first people smile and think I am not telling them the truth. We need to tell Americans the truth.

Mr. DeMINT. I say to Senator Santorum, as he can tell, I was originally hesitant to yield to our distinguished Democratic colleague, but I am now so grateful that the Senator did yield because it made the case of why we need to guarantee benefits and why we need to stop the raid on the Social Security surplus. Practically all the information that we heard is untrue as it relates to my bill, but the misleading information is the best case for the Guarantee Act that Senator Santorum has proposed. It is so important, when people are getting untruths and so much misinformation that is intended to confuse them, that we reassure the American people that regardless of how we change Social Security to benefit future workers, that we are not going to change anything about the benefits of anyone who was born before 1950. I am honored to be presenting these ideas with Senator Santorum today. There is no one in this Congress and probably no one in this country who has done more to protect Social Security for this generation or the next than has Senator Santorum. I am also supporting this Guarantee Act because Americans know that we have a problem with Social Security. It is disingenuous for any Member of the Senate to suggest otherwise. So we must guarantee in the face of these folks knowing we have a problem, but we also must begin now the process of fixing the Social Security system so it will be there for younger Americans. We can do that by, first, stop spending Social Security on other things. That is what we are doing right now as I speak. Americans know why we have a problem with Social Security. Maybe Senator Santorum can add more later since he has done so many townhalls. There are many Congressmen and Senators who have gone out to talk about Social Security, and they have had many people stand up and say, Social Security would be fine if you folks in Congress would stop spending Social Security on other things. They figured out that every dime that comes in for Social Security that is not needed for today's retirees is spent on other programs. If we could look at the next slide, since the mid-1980s we have had $1.7 trillion of Social Security taxes that have come in that were not needed to pay benefits. Our colleagues will say that that is safe and sound in the trust fund but, frankly, if there is one fact that is true on this floor tonight, it is that every dime has been spent on something else. Not one penny has been saved for Social Security for today's retirees or for tomorrow's retirees. What we are proposing is to stop that raid on Social Security. We are not proposing a comprehensive change in the Social Security system. In fact, Americans would see no difference in the Social Security system. What we would start doing is to take the money that is not needed for Social Security today and save it so that it would not be spent on other things. Here is the proposition: Between now and 2017, we are going to spend another $775 billion of Social Security money on other things unless we pass this Stop the Raid on Social Security bill. We can see it year to year. This year it is almost $70 billion that came in for Social Security that was spent on other things. Next year it will be well over $80 billion, and it will continue until it disappears in 2017. At that point, there will not be enough Social Security taxes to pay benefits, and we will have to start moving money from the general fund to make sure every American gets their Social Security check. The Stop the Raid bill would take all of this money, $775 billion, and put it in Treasury bills so that it could not be spent on other things. Instead of the government owning it, the people who send the money for Social Security would own it. My Democrat colleagues oppose ownership. They do not want the American people to own their own Social Security system. They want the Government to own it, and they want the Government to continue to spend it on other things. We want to stop that raid on Social Security. The Democrats, as we have heard tonight, will say that if we stop spending this Social Security money on other things, it is going to increase the deficit. Again, that is not true. All it does is make us honest with our accounting. Right now, the $1.7 trillion we have already spent, and this 775 billion additional dollars is spent without any recognition that we are creating a debt. If we save this money in Treasury notes where there is no risk to the American people, we have to start counting it as debt if we continue to spend it. This is a secret slush fund that Congress has used for many years--$1.7 trillion plus $775 billion. Congress, every year, spends this money on other things and does not count it as debt. If we start saving it for Social Security, it will be a debt if we continue to spend it. Only in Washington--and I am afraid only my Democrat colleagues-- could say that saving money creates a debt. I am afraid only a Democratic colleague at this point could say that saving $775 billion of Social Security money for Social Security actually weakens the program. Their intent is to oppose ownership by the American people who should own Social Security. Their intent is to spend this $775 billion on something else. I have heard my Democrat colleagues over the last couple of weeks talk about stopping the raid. They want to stop the raid by increasing taxes. They have said that they stopped the raid. That has never happened, and that is not true because even when we were in surpluses as a nation a few years ago, every dime of Social Security was spent. Some of it was spent to pay down debt, but it was all spent. And not one penny, even when the Nation was in surplus, was saved for Social Security. We need to stop that practice and be honest with the American people. My Democrat colleagues have said interesting things about stopping the raid. Our distinguished minority leader has said he supports the raid. He called stopping the raid a ``bad idea'' that will ``threaten benefits and increase the debt and weaken Social Security.'' Get that. We are going to save Social Security for Social Security and that weakens Social Security. It is amazing. Let's look at another comment from Democrat leaders. This comes from our colleague in the House, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: There is nothing wrong with Social Security lending money with the prospect of returning it. One more quote, and then I know Senator Santorum has probably some questions for me. This is from our colleague, Charlie Rangel, the House Ways and Means ranking member. When talking about the raid, he says: There is nothing wrong with that. But let be read his whole statement. He said: Would you have any problem if you put your money into a bank and they just took your money and invested it and you went to the bank and they gave you your money when you needed it? There is nothing wrong with that. The problem is, that is the core of the misinformation we are hearing from Democrats, that our money from Social Security is actually saved in a bank; that it is actually there. But that is not true. It is not fair to tell the American people that it is true. There is no bank. There is no money. We need to start today to stop the raid on Social Security money.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I was just across the way in my office working on several things that I think are important to the country. We were working on a bill to stop the increases in taxes that will occur unless we act immediately. This is another bill that the Democrats are trying to obstruct, but it is critically important that we pass this stop-the-tax-increase bill in order to keep our economy growing and to keep creating jobs in this country. I was also working in my office, with some of my staff, on some of the things we can do to move this country more toward energy independence. But I kept listening to my distinguished Democrat colleague from Illinois and heard him talking about our President and this war. The more I listened, the more frustrated I became. As a matter of fact, I would have to say I became very angry because what I was hearing was baseless accusations and shameless criticisms, things that were said that I think diminish the Senate as an institution, which I feel must be refuted. I am afraid that my Democratic colleagues are playing the war on terror similar to a political game. It is a dangerous game that endangers our troops, and it is a dangerous game that the Democrats have played before. Over the last 25 years, terrorist attacks in this country and around the world have increased. During the Clinton administration, Americans were killed in our embassies, on our warships and even in New York City when the World Trade Center was attacked by terrorists. From the Democrats and the Clinton administration, there was a lot of talk, but there was no action. It was all left to the next President to deal with. Instead of dealing with it in a way that would help secure our future, the Clinton administration instead decimated our intelligence network with politically correct ideas that greatly reduced our ability to gather intelligence in difficult places around the world. John Deutsch, President Clinton's Director of the CIA created rules that hurt our intelligence community's ability to gather human intelligence. Now my Democrat colleagues accuse President Bush of using poor intelligence to do what they said needed to be done before he was even elected President. In 1998, with President Clinton's leadership, we supported regime change in Iraq. This was something that was determined as a national policy years before President Bush took office. There are some reasons we did this. Saddam Hussein had demonstrated that he was a danger to civilization years before 9/11. He not only attacked Kuwait and tried to assassinate an American President, he committed mass murder all over his country using weapons of mass destruction. He was a deadly killer. He supported terrorism in other countries. If a terrorist in Israel blew himself up and killed Israelis, the family of that terrorist would receive a check from Saddam Hussein. To suggest that Iraq was not supporting terrorists is not true. Saddam Hussein, as part of the original gulf war settlement, agreed to document and prove the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction, which he acknowledged he had. But he did not disarm. He did not document the destruction. The inspectors had to play a cat-and-mouse game with him. The world did not know what Saddam Hussein had. Our decimated intelligence network had to guess whether he had them. President Bush made the only decision he could. Knowing the history of Saddam Hussein, having a national policy that was written by the Democrats to remove him from power, he made a decision to take action instead of talking about it. The justification for removing Saddam Hussein from power happened before President Bush was elected and had been supported by Democrats. But now they come down to the Senate floor and suggest that because the President had some bad information that he rushed us to war. In fact, leaving Saddam Hussein in power would not have been acceptable to any administration that looked at the facts. This country cannot allow murderous dictators who have attacked our allies, threatened civilians and destabilized the Middle East to stay in power. Now we have Democrats, whose attitude basically embolden terrorists for a decade during the 1990s by talking but not doing, on the Senate floor attacking our President for doing what we knew had to be done. But this is the Democrat pattern. They say anything, but they do nothing. We are dealing with a serious energy situation in this country today, but for the last decade they have obstructed any development of our own domestic energy supplies. Now they are on the floor blaming President Bush for the high energy prices, while the President and the Republican Congress have managed, despite the Democratic obstruction, to pass an Energy bill that will move us toward energy independence. The Democrats are on the floor often complaining about American job losses, but when we try to pass legislation that improves the business climate in this country, they obstruct. They obstructed passing our elimination of junk lawsuits and the elimination of fraudulent bankruptcies. They tried to stop that, voting en bloc against it. But the President and the Republicans have been able to pass that and move us along. There are a whole list of things that Republicans, with the President's leadership, have done from the Energy bill, to class action and bankruptcy reform. We have passed a budget that reduced the growth in spending. We have passed a number of things that improve vocational training. There is a huge list. On the back side of this list is what America needs to know about: The Democrat agenda, of which they have none. The reason they are misleading the American people about our President and the importance of winning the war on terror is they have no agenda. They are not willing to step out and take any leadership on any issue. So all they do is obstruct, attack, distort, and complain with their ``do nothing'' agenda. It is hard for some of us, as we try to go about our work, to move America forward and address the difficult problems of today and create more opportunities for tomorrow, when we have to carry a concrete block we call the Democrat Party. But when they go across the line and start misleading America about the importance of this war on terror and treating it akin to some kind of political game, when we and our children and future generations are in danger, as is the rest of the world. As we see almost every day, this war on terror is real--we cannot treat it as some kind of silly political debate where they are trying to give the Commander in Chief of this country a time line as to when our troops need to go home. It is like they have not bothered to go to Iraq themselves and meet with the troops, as I have had the chance to do twice this year, and talk with the generals. The President has met every deadline he set for elections, to approve the constitution, and we are moving exactly as he said we would move, to turn more of the defense of that country over to their military. That is happening. They are opening businesses, schools, and hospitals, and we are helping them along the way. When we get them to the point where they can defend themselves, the President will bring our troops home, but continue to stand firm against terror, wherever it exists around the world. This is not a game. Terror is a real enemy, and many Americans have already died because we did not take the war on terror seriously. It is time to take it seriously and to stop playing political games with the most important issue of our generation. I do not think we as a Nation should ever yield to terror or the type of rhetoric we have had to listen to today.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I find the comments of the Senator from North Dakota very curious, if not amusing. I find the opposition to this deficit reduction package perplexing. How can we come to the Senate and rail against deficits and, at the same time, rail against spending cuts? Some of my colleagues have gotten comfortable with voting against something before they vote for it. In 1993, when the Senate was considering mandatory spending reductions much like we are considering today--only then it was $77 billion, about twice as much as we are considering cutting today--the Senator from North Dakota supported it. Not only did he support it, he took the lead in pushing for more spending cuts. To quote the Senator from North Dakota: I am one of those on the Democratic side who insisted on more spending cuts . . . I did so because I believed very strongly that we had to have more spending cuts to have balance in this program . . . Madam President, we succeeded . . . We got more spending cuts. The Senator also said: When we talk about there being too much spending, when we talk about the Federal budget being out of control, Medicare and Medicaid are part of the explanations. And, again, in 1997, when the Senate was considering mandatory spending reductions which totaled $107 billion, which is almost three times what we are considering today, the Senator from North Dakota supported it, too. Again, he not only voted for it but he called for even more spending cuts. Again, the Senator said: I, too, am proud to have voted for the provisions that we passed this morning that will finish the job of balancing the unified budget . . . Frankly, I would have done more by way of deficit reduction. I wish we had been more ambitious. I wish we would have done more in the long-term reform of entitlement programs, but that was not to be. That is for another day. This is all very confusing to me. How can the Senator be for spending reductions in 1993, in 1997, but then oppose them today? I don't want to make any assumptions, but this appears to be politically driven because the only thing that has changed since 1993 and 1997 is the man in the White House. The Senator is correct that the Republicans are now in the majority. But history will show that the Republicans in the majority in the 1990s worked with President Clinton to cut the budget and balance the budget over time. Our country faces many difficult challenges. But my colleagues continue to talk a good game while they obstruct at every turn. It actually reminds me of an experience when I was a teenager taking lifeguarding classes at a swimming pool. One of the parts of the final test for that lifeguarding class was to swim to the bottom of the deep end, pick up a concrete block, bring it back to the surface and then swim to the other side of the pool. Every day when I get up in Washington, DC, I feel I have to go down to the bottom of the pool and pick up my Democratic colleagues and drag them across the pool. On energy, while we hear rhetoric in the Senate blaming the President for high energy prices, the Democrats vote en bloc to keep us from developing the oil resources we have in this country. In a committee meeting last week we wanted to build new refineries, modern, environmentally safe refineries on old military bases, but the Democrats voted en bloc to stop it. I heard this morning from the Senator from North Dakota about spending Social Security on other things. Yet when Republicans this year proposed we stop spending Social Security on other things and save it in Treasury notes, they en bloc came out against it. The same thing is happening today on deficit reduction. They say they want deficit reduction, but they are on the floor speaking out against it. I find the comments coming from the other side of the aisle very interesting. I keep hearing how ``we are opposed to budget deficits,'' but this chart will show how they spend, spend, spend. If I could--and my colleague from North Dakota referenced some of the amendments that we brought up last week, which they said were offset--I think it is important, when we speak on the floor, we get our facts straight. Because these are the amendments offered by the Democrats that would increase the budget by over a half a trillion dollars, none of which were offset. There were other amendments offered with some offsets, but, as shown on this chart, this would increase the spending and the deficit by over a half a trillion dollars. If we look at it in total--since we are using some moving charts this morning--if we want to be accurate--again, this gets back to the concrete block analogy--we are trying to cut spending in this Senate, which is only a third of what we did last time we went through this same procedure, with Democratic support, yet amendments have been offered that have taken this all the way up to the top of $500 billion and beyond, with the new amendments that were offered last week. It is important, as a nation, we address difficult issues in a sound, fiscally responsible way. This bill before us this week is very modest, with spending cuts that reduce no care to the poor; they are cutting wasteful spending and fraud from Medicaid and other programs. This should be an easy vote for every Member of the Senate. There is other spending that we need to address. This bill should be easy. I encourage all of my colleagues to set the rhetoric aside. Let's leave the concrete block at the bottom of the pool and swim across it together and get this done on behalf of the American people. Mr. President, I thank the Chariman for this time and yield back.

Mr. DeMINT. Ten or 15 minutes.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, yesterday I spoke on the floor about the need for fiscal responsibility and the need to pass a deficit reduction bill to get our fiscal house in order. These are serious times, difficult for our country and for many of our citizens. Americans are demanding bold and immediate action. The Senator from Oklahoma, Dr. Coburn, made some important remarks on the floor last week. I want to associate myself with them. Senator Coburn talked about a distant rumble, a rumble at the grassroots level, the sound of hard-working Americans who are getting increasingly angry with out-of-control Government spending, waste, fraud, and abuse. This rumble is becoming a roar, and it is the sound of the growing frustration of the American people. It is a sense of increasing disgust about blatant overspending, our inability to make the tough budget choices the American people make every day, and our unwillingness to make priorities rather than spending our children and grandchildren's future. I am very pleased the Senate Republicans are developing a deficit reduction package that will cut Government waste and reduce Federal spending. The fiscal discipline comes at a critical time. There are many wasteful practices of Government, and I will look at one of them today in Medicaid. In New York, there was a dentist who overbilled Medicaid, claiming to perform as many as 991 procedures in a single day. It was also reported that school officials in New York have enrolled tens of thousands of low-income students in speech therapy without the required evaluation. This created more than $1 billion in questionable Medicaid payments for their districts. In fact, one Buffalo school sent over 4,000 students into speech therapy in a single day without talking to them or reviewing their records. In Illinois, another dentist cheated Medicaid out of more than $200,000 in bogus payments. This man falsely claimed to treat abused children in the care of the State's child welfare agency for 7 years. In California, a Medicaid fraud scheme involved more than 15 clinical laboratories that illegally billed over $20 million for tests that were never authorized by physicians. In Florida, an ophthalmologist wrote prescriptions for a single drug worth over $2 million over a 2-year period. The list goes on and on. We are talking about Medicaid fraud and abuse, not medical care for the poor. The Government Accountability Office reports that perhaps 10 percent of all Medicaid spending is questionable or fraudulent. We must stop this waste. The Republican deficit reduction package will create some needed accountability to this program. I have heard objections to these savings from those who believe that these savings will fall on the poor. This is absurd. We are trying to catch a thief, not hurt the poor. If we let billions and billions continue to be wasted, stolen, or embezzled, that will hurt the poor. This is a small amount compared to the overall budget. This plan, this total deficit reduction plan we are talking about, which includes the changes in Medicaid, will reduce mandatory spending by only $35 billion over 5 years, which is less than one-half of 1 percent of total spending this year. These spending reductions represent only about one-third of the reductions Congress passed in 1993 and 1997. In 1993, Congress passed a reduction package that trimmed about $78 billion. That is 2.6 times greater than what we are talking about today. Unfortunately and curiously, many Democrats who supported this larger effort in 1993 are opposing our modest downpayment today. In 1997, Congress passed a reduction package that trimmed about $89 billion. That is over three times greater than what we are talking about today. Unfortunately and curiously, many Democrats who supported this larger effort in 1997 are opposing our modest downpayment today. This plan, this $35 billion reduction, is a small amount to ask in the context of our total budget, and it is only a downpayment on our future deficit. We need to do much more. I cannot understand why some of my Democratic colleagues will not support this modest effort, given all the waste, fraud, and abuse we have in Government today. I find this opposition intriguing because many of these same Senators supported similar measures that were far more substantial. In fact, in 1993, they thought $78 billion in savings was not big enough. Here is a quote from Senator Kerry from Massachusetts: My own personal view is we have not cut enough where we could have and should have cut more. And Senator Dorgan from North Dakota: I favored a more robust deficit reduction by cutting another $100 billion in wasteful or low-priority spending. Senator Biden from Delaware: Specifically I want more spending cuts. In 1997, when Congress cut $114 billion, my Democratic colleagues applauded it and some wanted more. Senator Byrd of West Virginia said: If the budget resolution included only the aforementioned spending reductions, I would likely be standing on the floor today declaring my unequivocal support for its passage. Senator Conrad from North Dakota: I rise to support the budget agreement. I believe it is a modest step--I want to emphasize ``modest''--in the right direction. And Senator Durbin from Illinois: This budget package cuts 115 billion over 5 years, without excessive new burdens on seniors . . . This budget cuts only $13 billion from Medicaid over 5 years . . . On balance . . . the spending package . . . [is] worthy of support. I think it is important to note that 33 of my current Democratic colleagues were in the Senate at the time and supported the deficit reduction package. I am deeply troubled by the apparent flip-flopping around here. We hear a lot of talk from my Democratic friends about the need to keep our fiscal house in order, but then they offer amendment after amendment to increase spending. Mr. President, I know this is difficult to read from where you sit, but these are the amendments to add to the budget this year by Democrats which totaled $460 billion. During the debate on the budget resolution, they tried to increase spending by $192 billion--here on our Democratic ``spendometer.'' During debate on the emergency supplemental, they offered amendments to increase spending by another $10 billion. During the debate on the various appropriations bills, they tried to increase spending by another $253 billion. I think all of this shows us something, something the American people understand very well: Democrats are not for keeping our fiscal house in order. They are for higher spending and higher taxes. Rather than making modest reductions today, they prefer to spend, spend, spend. This new spending sets them up to tax, tax, tax. We need to wake up. We cannot keep spending and taxing, taxing and spending. There is no problem too big for America to solve if we have the commitment and the strength to do it. The time for excuses and obstruction is over. I am here today to appeal to every Senator to support our deficit reduction package that will help cut the cost of Government so we have all of our strength to secure America's future. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. DeMINT. If I may, I ask the Chair to notify me when I have 1 minute remaining.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Could I ask unanimous consent?

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, these are serious and difficult times for our country and for many Americans. These are times that demand bold and immediate action. The American people do not want any more excuses. They do not want to hear Congressmen and Senators arguing about who is to blame, and they are not impressed by those who constantly criticize the proposals of others but never make any proposals of their own. Energy prices are too high, and we have heard enough excuses about why America cannot develop our own oil and gas reserves, build more refineries, and develop more alternative fuels to make us more independent of Middle East oil. Health care and health insurance are too expensive, and we have heard enough excuses about why individuals cannot buy health insurance from anywhere in the country and get the same tax breaks as businesses. Illegal immigration is out of control, and we have heard enough excuses about why we cannot control our borders. Social Security is going broke, and we have heard enough excuses why Congress should continue to spend trillions of dollars of Social Security taxes on other Government programs. We need action now, but we cannot solve these difficult problems that face us if we do not have a strong economy and a more efficient Government. House and Senate Republicans are developing budget reconciliation legislation now that will accomplish these goals to strengthen our economy, create jobs, and cut the cost of the Federal Government. This package has two parts. The first part is to stop the scheduled tax increases that will soon add new burdens to our citizens and the businesses that pay their salaries. We must not allow new tax increases to steal our jobs and weaken our country at a time when we need all of our economic strength to solve the problems of today and to create new opportunities for the future. The 2003 jobs and growth plan passed by Congress and signed by the President lowered taxes for capital gains and dividends, and it resulted in greater economic growth. Our economy has grown more than 4 percent a year since 2003, much faster than in the prior 2 years. Over 4 million jobs have been created since 2003, and 7 million seniors saved an average of over $1200 on their 2004 taxes. And while tax rates have fallen, tax revenues have been increasing. In fact, as a result of a growing economy, Federal tax receipts grew this year by over $270 billion--$100 billion more than the Congressional Budget Office estimated earlier this year. If Congress does not pass this important budget reconciliation legislation this year, taxes will go up and economic growth will go down. During uncertain times, Americans want stability. And that is why Congress must act now to bring certainty to America's families and stop the scheduled tax increases. The second part of the Republican budget reconciliation package is to cut Government waste and reduce Federal spending. There are many wasteful practices of Government. We have all heard the stories like the dentist who overbilled Medicaid, claiming to perform as many as 991 procedures a day during a 12-month period.

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Senator. I thank the Chair. Examples like the Medicaid one I just mentioned are maddening. We must stop this wasteful spending, and we also must slow the growth of new spending. If we slow the growth of new spending only, we can save much of the money we need to help our States recover from this year's devastating hurricanes. There is no problem too big for America to solve if we have the commitment and the strength to do it. Mr. President, the time for criticism, excuses, and obstruction is over. I am here this morning to appeal to every Senator to support our budget reconciliation package that will stop new tax increases and help cut the cost of Government so we have all the strength we need to secure the future for every American. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. Yes, if I could have a couple more minutes. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill that would require hospitals to disclose their charges for the most common procedures and drugs. This bill recognizes that consumers seeking routine hospital services need to know what they are paying so they can make educated decisions about their own health care. This legislation aims to give Americans that information in a user friendly format. Specifically, the bill would require hospitals to regularly report to the Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services the amount they charge for the 25 most commonly performed inpatient procedures, the 25 most common outpatient procedures, and the 50 most frequently administered medications. The Department would then post this information on the Internet for easy access. Under the current system, patients often have no idea what they will be charged until they receive a bill. This is a problem because hospital charges vary significantly based on facility and procedure. Some hospitals charge one-hundred and twenty dollars for a chest x-ray while others charge more than fifteen hundred. Uninsured patients and those who pay with cash are often surprised with unexpected hospital charges because there is no way for them to know what they will be charged up front. No other industry expects consumers to commit to buying before they know the true cost. Patients should have access to price information before they commit to a procedure. This bipartisan bill is good for the uninsured and for consumer driven healthcare. Individuals cannot be expected to get comfortable making their own health care decisions unless they know how much they will be expected to pay for different services. I am grateful to Senators Richard Durbin and John Cornyn for joining me as original cosponsors of this bi-partisan legislation. I am also pleased that Representatives Bob Inglis and Dan Lipinski have introduced companion legislation in the House. They recognize that information is power, and this bill is an important step in empowering Americans with the tools to be smart consumers. I urge my Senate colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.