John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, first, I wish to say to my friend from New Jersey, I appreciate the remarks he has made. I have stood with the Cuban people and especially with the dissidents down there for years, many times with my friend from New Jersey. I appreciate the issue he is bringing up and fighting for those folks. There have been those cases over the years where American voices have reached all the way into those gulags, whether it was the old Soviet Union or North Korea or wherever it may be. America being the beacon of hope for so many people around the world, it is critical that Members of this body, as well as the President of the United States, speak out for freedom and speak out for those people to give them hope that there are people in America who are listening and who are paying attention to them, so they will keep fighting for freedom in their own country. So I appreciate the comments the Senator from New Jersey made tonight. Omnibus Appropriations I rise tonight, though, to speak about the legislation that is before the Senate. It is the Consolidated Appropriations Act or, as some people call it, the mini bus. This is a $447 billion bill. Around here, that seems like a small number. I believe this spending bill represents yet another step in the wrong direction for our country. I believe this legislation is only more of the same old recipe of fiscal irresponsibility that guides the majority in Congress. In a time of sky-high budget deficits and staggering debt, the American people are now demanding a better way forward. I wish to make it clear for the record what this legislation does. As a Senate Budget Committee analysis shows, this bill increases spending by 12 percent over last year's fiscal year for the six spending bills that are wrapped up in this legislation. When we look at each of these bills separately, the numbers are even more shocking. The State Department received a 33-percent increase over last year. Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development received a 23-percent increase over last year. Keep in mind that these accounts together received more than $60 billion of increase in the stimulus bill that was signed earlier this year. When we look at the gritty details, for example, at individual programs, the numbers are just as bad. The bill increases the Corporation for National Community Service by 30 percent and includes a 41-percent increase for bilateral economic assistance. There is also a 9-percent increase in Amtrak, and keep in mind that Amtrak got a $1.3 billion extra amount of money in the stimulus bill this year. These spending increases are set against a dire economic picture. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in fiscal year 2010, the deficit will be $1.4 trillion. Right now, American families are hurting. I know my home State of Nevada has experienced some of the highest unemployment levels in the country--13 percent, according to the Department of Labor. In talking to constituents back home, I can guarantee my colleagues it is actually much higher. We have a situation where because people quit looking for jobs, the unemployment rate is understated. In my State is probably closer to 20 percent. Democrats expect this bloated spending bill to receive what has become a customary rubberstamp when it comes to spending in this town. But I don't see how a $300,000 earmark to Carnegie Hall in New York City or $250,000 for a bike path in Michigan can be considered responsible spending during the economic times we are in. There are over 5,000 earmarks in this omnibus bill, this mini bus bill, whatever you want to call it, that is before us today--5,000 earmarks. Not surprisingly, with all this spending, the majority in Congress must increase the debt limit. The debt limit is the limit set by Congress of how much debt our country can take on. This is similar, if you think about it, to your credit card limit. Right now, the debt limit is set at a little over $12 trillion--trillion. Let me take a little side note. We speak about trillions of dollars anymore as though it is nothing. Well, to put $1 trillion in a little bit of perspective--I have said this on this floor before--if you spend $1 million a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, to get to $1 trillion, you would have had to start spending that $1 million a day every day from the time Jesus was born, spend it until now, and you still wouldn't be at your first $1 trillion. Yet our country already has $1 trillion in debt. Anyway, the majority is raising the debt limit. This would be akin to taking your credit card and maxing it out but then going to the bank and saying: By the way, can I increase my credit limit by 20 percent? Oh, by the way, I have no idea how I am going to pay it back, except maybe my children will be able to pay it back someday. That is exactly what this Congress is doing. We are saying: We can't pay this debt back. There is no way we can pay this debt back. Maybe our children, maybe our grandchildren can pay it back. Americans across the country are going through tough times and they are doing what many in this body are unwilling to do. They are tightening their belts and cutting back on spending. According to the Federal Reserve, household debt has been reduced by $351 billion in the last quarter. This is the largest quarterly decline in our Nation's history. That is right. American families see the danger of fiscal irresponsibility and they are cutting back on borrowing the money they may have trouble paying back. State governments, local governments, businesses are doing the same as American families: They are cutting back. We also have interest we must pay on this debt. Just like the interest you pay on your credit card when you carry a balance, Americans pay interest on the debt this country continues to accumulate. CBO estimates today the annual interest on this Nation's debt last year was around $179 billion--a big number, $179 billion. A lot of good could be done with that if we weren't just spending that, paying the interest on the debt. Well, that $179 billion by the year 2019 is projected to go to almost $800 billion, not including any of the new spending programs that are being proposed out there--$800 billion a year. As much as we are spending on our national defense will just be interest on our debt. My friends on the other side of the aisle have made it a habit to come down to the Senate floor and say: Well, where were Republicans when President Bush was in office, adding to the debt, increasing the deficit? Well, I was right here saying many of the same things I am saying today. Not only did I vote against many of the spending bills that were passed during the previous administration, but I would have liked to have seen President Bush put his foot down and veto some of these bills and force Congress to cut back on out-of-control spending. If President Obama is worried about the debt that his children and grandchildren are going to inherit, he has a hard time showing it. It seems to me the President is in denial regarding the fiscal train wreck that is taking place in this country. In July of this year, President Obama said he understands the concern about the debt and admitted his recovery plan has added to the growing debt. But he stated at the time that now is not the time to tighten our belt and stop spending. In November, however, President Obama said: I think it is important, though, to recognize that if we keep adding to the debt, even in the midst of the recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession. First, the President says we must keep spending, even during the recession. Then he says that continued spending and increasing the debt during the recession could lead to a lack of confidence in the U.S. economy by the American people and by people around the world. The President remains in his state of denial because before us is a $447 billion bill that he will likely sign into law. I challenge President Obama to show leadership and veto this bill. Say to the Senate and the House of Representatives: Get your fiscal house in order. It is time we show responsibility to our children and grandchildren. Spending this year has added up a little bit. The TARP-- an additional $350 billion was added to the TARP program this year. This has now become a slush fund. The stimulus bill was $787 billion. It was supposed to not allow the unemployment rate to go over 8 percent. We now know the unemployment rate is 10 percent. There were supposed to be millions of jobs saved or created. That certainly doesn't appear to be the case. In this stimulus bill, we see that $6 million will go to a PR firm whose head is a former pollster for a high-ranking member in the Obama administration. Again, that was for $6 million. That was to educate folks on what it means to go from analog television to digital. I don't know if anybody watched TV this last year, but the cable companies, the broadcasters, spent tens and tens of millions of dollars to tell folks about the transition and what it meant to transition from analog to digital. Walmart and other companies that were selling the converter boxes were telling people about it. The government didn't need to spend this money. The private sector was handling it just fine. That is just one small example of the wasteful spending that was part of the stimulus bill. My State has a 13-percent unemployment rate, as I mentioned before. So the stimulus bill certainly doesn't seem to have helped my State. I want to show you what we are facing with this debt. Under the President's budget that was passed earlier this year, the debt will double within 5 years, and it will actually triple within 10 years. The debt that this country is taking on will double within 5 years and triple within 10 years. Now we are going to add a $2.5 trillion health care bill, which is what the spending will be when it is fully implemented. The other side of the aisle has said that it actually decreases the deficit. That is part of the smoke and mirrors. You get all of the tax increases and the Medicare cuts in the first few years, but the actual benefits don't start until 2014. So if you look at a true 10-year picture, the spending in the bill is about $2.5 trillion. On top of that, the bill I am talking about today, the $447 billion ``minibus'' of appropriations bills, is a 12-percent increase from last year to this year. When are we going to get the message from the American people? In the past, it doesn't seem like they cared that much about the debt and deficit. We are hearing about it all across the country today. That is the reason you're seeing in poll after poll that it is one of the big things the American people are concerned about now. I am happy they are finally paying attention. I just hope this body starts paying attention to what the American people are saying. Mr. President, now I want to turn my attention to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program and how the bill that is before us would eliminate this vital and successful program. This omnibus bill would accomplish this by restricting the enrollment of any new students and lead to the end of the program. As many of you know, the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program is part of a comprehensive strategy designed to provide a quality education for every child in the District, regardless of income or neighborhood. The District roundly supports this program. DC's mayor, Adrian Fenty, testified in favor of the program. He has sent letters of support to Members of Congress regarding the scholarship program. Other DC leaders have also expressed their support, including City Council Chairman Vincent Gray, DC Public School Chancellor Michelle Rhee, and former Mayor Anthony Williams. The residents support the program too. A Greater Washington Urban League Poll found that almost 70 percent of DC residents support this education funding. Although the Chancellor of Public Schools, Michelle Rhee, has made much progress reforming DC's public schools, there is still much work to do. The statistics paint a grim picture. According to the Department of Education's National Assessment of Education, DC ranked last in the Nation based on fourth and eighth grade reading assessments. In 2007, only 14 percent of fourth graders--14 percent--were proficient in reading and math in DC schools. DC's overall performance on SATs is not much better. Reading scores are 32 points below the national average, while math scores are 60 points below the national average. DC has some of the highest levels of per-pupil spending in the Nation. Unfortunately, this large investment is bearing little fruit. The biggest tragedy of all is that a quality education represents the best chance for most of these children to escape the cycle of poverty that so many of their families are in today. For many, the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program provides that chance. The average household income of participating families that get these scholarships is $22,000 a year for a family of four. All participating students come from families below 185 percent of the poverty line. Nearly 100 percent of the participating students are minorities. Eighty-six percent of the scholarship students would otherwise be assigned to attend a DC public school that did not meet the ``adequate yearly progress'' standards in 2006 and 2007 and are in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. Unfortunately, many of the Democrats in this body continue to put politics ahead of a program that is helping to ensure low-income children have the ability to attend safe and effective schools. Some opponents of the DC Opportunity Scholarship say the program isn't effective. They say it doesn't work and only diverts money from DC public schools. I simply disagree, and I believe the facts paint a very different picture, a more accurate representation of the success of the scholarship program. According to Dr. Patrick Wolf at the University of Arkansas, the principal investigator studying the scholarship program, this program is working. DC opportunity scholarship recipients show the largest achievement impact in reading of any education policy program yet evaluated in a randomized control trial. These randomized trials are the gold standard when it comes to figuring out whether a program works. While the numbers paint an encouraging picture, I think 90 percent of parents of children in the program who say that the scholarship program gives their child a chance at a quality and safe education is a better measure. David Martinez, whose daughters, Brenda and Katherine, already attend Sacred Heart through the scholarship program, wanted his youngest daughter, Heidi, to enroll as well. David writes: I wanted my 5-year-old daughter, Heidi, to attend a private school, as well. I was overjoyed when we received a letter-- telling us that the scholarship had been granted. Then, two weeks later--because President Obama, the Congress, and Education Secretary Arne Duncan sided against my daughter--we received another letter. This letter said that Heidi wouldn't receive her scholarship. We were devastated when we read the letter. Patricia Williams writes of her son Fransoir. Before the program, she worried how she could help Fransoir get a good education and make sure he was safe and supervised. Patricia hopes that all her children attend college in the future. Despite the fact that the parents and students involved in the DC Opportunity Scholarship have pleaded with lawmakers to preserve the program, Democrats continue to advocate eliminating the opportunity for more than 1,700 students to continue attending private schools. When you look close at the data on DC schools, it is no wonder that the DC Opportunity Scholarship parents are so vocal about keeping the program alive. Per-pupil expenditures in the District public schools are more than $14,000 per pupil per year, and DC class size is one of the lowest, 14 to 1 student-teacher ratio. Yet reading scores continue to languish at or near the bottom in every national assessment. Recent data shows that 69 percent of fourth graders are reading below basic levels, as defined by the Department of Education in Washington, DC. DC students in DC public schools rank last in the Nation in both SAT and ACT scores. Beyond the low performance in the classrooms, DC schools are often violent and dangerous. A Federal Government study found that 12 percent of DC students were threatened or injured by a weapon on school property during a recent school year--well above the national average. Would most Americans put up with those kinds of statistics, or would they fight for change? This body has to fight for the students and the parents in Washington, DC. According to the Washington Post, Anacostia High School alone saw 61 violent offenses, including 3 sexual assaults and 1 instance of the use of a deadly weapon. Perhaps these facts are why President Obama has chosen to enroll both of his daughters in a private school in Washington. Clearly, we can do better, and the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program is a means to achieve better results for low-income children in Washington. There are promising signs that this program works. My colleagues, including Senators on both sides of the aisle--Senators Lieberman, Collins, Feinstein, Voinovich, Byrd, and Alexander--have joined in a bipartisan bill to improve and extend this successful program. This program should not see its death through the appropriations process. In conclusion, what this ``minibus''--the bill before us today--is doing is rolling over the future of this country. Call it what you want--minibus, omnibus, or 18 wheeler--it is carrying a load of debt and wasteful spending and government irresponsibility. It is a reminder to the American people that while they balance their budgets and scrape to pay their bills and try to save something for the future, the Federal Government continues its reckless shopping spree and just prints the money. This is not what we are sent here to do. I hope the President sees that and vetoes this irresponsible legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about Senator Crapo's motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance in order that this bill does not increase taxes for individuals with incomes of less than $200,000 or families with incomes of less than $250,000. Let's start by looking at three basic promises President Obama campaigned on to get elected--promises that almost no one on the other side of the aisle talks about anymore. Here are those promises. These are his quotes. He says: But let me [be] perfectly clear . . . if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not a single dime. Promise No. 2: . . . nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have. His third promise: Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year. I think these are three promises that should be the test when we are judging this health care bill. I certainly agree with President Obama on all three of these points. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has recently confirmed that this bill, in no uncertain terms, is a middle-class tax nightmare. Even after you account for taxpayers who receive the tax credit, 24 percent of tax filers--so that is a quarter of all tax filers--who make under $200,000 will, on average, see their taxes go up. Only 8 percent of all taxpayers receive the premium tax credit, which, by the way, is a new entitlement program, not a tax cut, as Democrats claim. This news should not be a surprise to anyone. We have known for a long time that the largest tax in the bill, the so-called Cadillac insurance plan tax, falls heavily on the middle class. Eighty-four percent--let me repeat this--84 percent of the people who pay the tax have incomes of less than $200,000 per year. What is wrong with this bill? This bill contains nine--that is right, nine--new taxes that will affect every American. I wish to walk you through those brandnew taxes. First, we have the 40-percent insurance plan tax. This is the biggest tax, and it is designed to make insurance companies and employers drop their premium insurance plans and leave people to buy cheaper plans. As a result, this tax violates promise No. 2 and promise No. 3 that the President made that I showed in my first chart. It also violates the first promise because 84 percent of the people paying this tax are in the middle class, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. The insurance tax, tax No. 2, is another tax that will raise the cost of everyone's insurance plans. According to the analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which I will quote, these taxes ``would increase costs for the affected firms, which would be passed on to purchasers''--in other words, the employees--``and would ultimately raise insurance premiums by a corresponding amount.'' In addition to violating the first promise not to raise taxes on middle-class Americans, it also raises insurance premiums and violates the third promise. This is not a good start for the American people. Tax No. 3, the employer tax. For businesses that are struggling to stay afloat and to not lay off employees, especially during these tough economic times, this tax will make it much harder and may result in further layoffs in our weakened economy. I thought our goal was to create jobs and to strengthen our economy. The drug tax--this is tax No. 4. This tax will increase pharmaceutical prices. In fact, my colleagues should not be surprised that drug companies are already increasing their prices ahead of this bill because they know they are going to be taxed. Tax No. 5, the lab tax. If you need clinical laboratory tests, then here is another way the government is going to pick your pocket. Tax No. 6, the medical device tax. If you need surgery, there is a new tax on medical devices, such as pacemakers and other lifesaving devices. Tax No. 7, failure to buy insurance tax. If you do not buy insurance, as this bill mandates, then you must pay a penalty tax. Do not be fooled by the new bill as it changes the name from ``tax'' to ``penalty.'' It is still money out of your pocket. By the way, 75 percent of that tax is on people who make less than $200,000 a year-- once again violating President Obama's first promise. I also wish to note that unlike the protection we included in the committee's bill to waive interest on criminal and civil penalties on people who do not pay this tax, the current bill on the floor only stops criminal penalties and certain enforcement mechanisms. This bill still allows the IRS to go after people who do not buy insurance. What is the maximum penalty allowed? For a civil penalty in this bill, $25,000 for not paying this tax. That is what Americans can be penalized if they just fundamentally do not agree with this tax. Some people, such as myself, do not believe it is constitutional that the Federal Government can require us to buy health insurance. If you believe strongly in the Constitution and you do not believe this is a constitutional provision, the IRS can come after you and require up to a $25,000 fine. The next tax to talk about is the cosmetic surgery tax. Ironically, Democrats want to tax the most market-oriented aspect of medicine that has resulted in lower prices, safer procedures, and more consumer satisfaction by taxing cosmetic surgery procedures. Tax No. 9, increased employee Medicare tax. Lastly, for the first time, some Americans will pay higher Medicare taxes and that money will finance an entirely new entitlement program. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, as I mentioned before, 84 percent of the people who pay the so-called Cadillac insurance plan tax are in the middle class. Let's consider the whole taxpaying population of the United States. According, once again, to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, 8 percent of the population, or slightly more than 13 million, will get benefits that the Democrats tout under this bill. That is about 8 percent of our population. The other side is wrong to say that this bill delivers a broad tax cut to all Americans. It does this for only 8 percent, and only after shifting $\1/2\ billion worth of new taxes around to the rest of Americans. And what about the rest of Americans? They are either clear losers under this bill or come out roughly even by getting a tax credit to balance their tax hike. Even after you account for taxpayers who receive the tax credit, about one-quarter of all tax filers under $200,000 will, on average, see their taxes go up, not down. About 157 million Americans who get health insurance from their employers will not be eligible for the tax credit. This does not take into account the higher premiums, medical devices, drugs, lab tests that the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation says will be shifted to consumers. They did not break those tax impacts down by income level, so we can't tell you exactly where they fall. But since most Americans make less than $200,000 a year, common sense tells you that most of those taxes will be borne by Americans making under $200,000 a year. Most of the nine brand new taxes in this legislation violate the President's promise that middle-class families will not have to pay more taxes. The purpose of the Crapo amendment is to inject honesty into the health care debate and to hold Congress to the promises that were made to the American people. Before we vote on this, I want to remind my colleagues of a very similar vote we had last year. I had an amendment to the Budget Act that was passed 98 to 0 by this body. My amendment last year said: It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill, resolution, amendment between Houses, motion----

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 1 minute.

Mr. ENSIGN. It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill, resolution, amendment between Houses, motion or conference report that includes a Federal tax increase which would have widespread applicability on middle-income taxpayers. That passed 98 to zero. That provision was adopted. Unfortunately, it was stripped later when the budget resolution went to conference. Let me say in conclusion, despite the actions my colleagues on the other side of the aisle made toward following that policy of not raising taxes on middle-income families, we continue to see legislative proposals--and the bill before us is exactly one of those legislative proposals--that do just that. So I support Senator Crapo's motion to commit this bill in order to remove these onerous tax burdens on the American people. My argument is simple: Let's do what we said we would do and protect middle-income families from these taxes. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, today I commemorate the beginning of an exciting chapter for the Las Vegas Asian Chamber of Commerce. For more than 20 years, this group of entrepreneurial southern Nevadans has worked together to provide resources and promote economic growth in the Asian community. Today, they will install the first woman to be president of their esteemed organization. Vida Chan Lin steps into this role--respected by her peers and energized by her passion for furthering the goals of the Las Vegas Asian Chamber of Commerce. While this leadership role is a new opportunity for Ms. Lin, her lifetime of experience has prepared her to take on this role. As a child, she was exposed to running a business as she saw firsthand the daily challenges and joys in the restaurants her family owned. She then found great satisfaction in the insurance industry where she continued to exceed expectations and eventually start her own company. Ms. Lin has always balanced her business drive and success with her commitment to community service. She has been an instrumental force behind the Las Vegas Asian Chamber of Commerce for many years. Her ability to bring people together, develop innovative programming, and mentor young leaders has helped ensure the long-term success of the Asian Chamber well beyond just her tenure. She has been recognized by countless organizations for her business acumen and her heartfelt commitment to public service. I am proud to congratulate Vida Lin on this special day, and I wish her great success in the coming term of her presidency.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I say to the Senator from Arizona, another place in this bill where they have a sense of the Senate that is not real is medical liability reform. Back in September, when The President addressed the Nation, he said defensive medicine caused by the medical liability crisis may be contributing to unnecessary costs; there are unnecessary tests. Let me show you the amount of money they are going to save with their medical liability reform sense of the Senate in this bill. That is it. That is how much their sense of the Senate on medical liability reform is going to save--zero. In contrast, the Medical liability reform several of us have offered is real medical liability reform. Several of us have been working on that. The savings from a real medical liability reform: $100 billion. We at least have said we have an amendment we are going to vote on later today. Let's at least do something to get the ball rolling on medical liability reform with the amendment we are offering today. The President suggested getting the ball rolling on medical liability reform. Back in 1995, Senator Ted Kennedy offered an amendment that would at least limit attorney's fees. These are contingencies fees. Twenty-one Democrats who were here back in 1995 who are here now voted for that limit. They are: Akaka, Baucus, Bingaman, Boxer, Byrd, Conrad, Dodd, Dorgan, Feingold, Feinstein, Harkin, Inouye, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Mikulski, Murray, Reid, and Specter. All 21 of these Senators voted for caps on attorney's fees. That would at least do something. That would help get the ball rolling on medical liability reform. But the same thing they have done with Medicare, saying they are going to keep Medicare savings in Medicare, they have not done. It is not real. Senator Gregg has a real amendment to fix that. I have a real amendment to fix the medical liability reform that hopefully will be voted on later as well. But at least let's go for a little bit of compromise right now.

Mr. ENSIGN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. ENSIGN. No question, those are the two most important types of reforms for medical liability laws that have been placed in the States--my State of Nevada, Texas, California and other States. The caps are what have shown a reduction in the medical liability premiums for doctors. They are what have shown a reduction in the cost of our health care system. Mr. President, let me quote because the other side is talking about these contingency fees; that they need these contingency fees to take on these lawsuits, especially for those who are very poor. They say it is the only way for this to happen. I quote: Since 1960, the effective hourly rates of tort lawyers-- These are the personal injury attorneys-- have increased 1,000 percent to 1,400 percent (in inflation- adjusted dollars). While the overall risk of nonrecovery has remained essentially constant though it has decreased materially for such high end tort categories as products liability and medical malpractice. The lawyers, basically, have created all these laws that make it easier for them to sue and their contingency rates have gone up 1,000 to 1,400 percent since 1960, and yet there is no more increased risk and even reduced risk of nonrecovery in medical malpractice cases. It is easier to sue nowadays. This comes down to, are you on the patients' side or the trial lawyers' side? Which side are you on? We are on the side of the patients; the other side seems to be on the side of the trial bar.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for her comments, and I note that even the Congressional Budget Office has said when you cut, for instance, reimbursement rates, those are going to come out of somebody's hide. And basically, the hide it is going to come out of is the seniors. As the Senator from Tennessee said, we are throwing seniors under the bus. When you cut $465 billion out of Medicare, it is going to come out of services for seniors--if these cuts are real. And in this bill they are real. That is why the Gregg amendment is going to be so important. I know the Senator from Kansas wants to jump in, so we welcome you to the conversation.

Mr. ENSIGN. I thank the Senator from Kansas for his excellent remarks. I know the Senator from Florida, the newest Member, one of the newest Members of the body, would like to join in.

Mr. ENSIGN. I see the Republican whip is on the floor and wants to join in the fun we are having on a Sunday afternoon. Please join us. (Mrs. HUTCHISON assumed the chair.)

Mr. ENSIGN. That is correct.

Mr. ENSIGN. My colleague is correct.

Mr. ENSIGN. It depends on the State, but that sounds about right.

Mr. ENSIGN. Remember, if I would ask a practicing attorney, they also don't just get that percentage, they also get court costs and various other research they have to do. It is not that the person who was injured gets three-quarters; they actually get less than the three- quarters that even this amendment would limit them to.

Mr. ENSIGN. We do have a couple attorneys on the floor, including the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and maybe one of the two of you could also talk about the true victims who actually have had medical malpractice against them. How long does it take to get through the court today because of all of these frivolous lawsuits that clog the courts?

Mr. ENSIGN. I appreciate that. Maybe we can have Dr. Barrasso jump in. I have a good friend who practices obstetrics and gynecology in Las Vegas, and he is a specialist in high-risk pregnancies. Because of the messed up medical liability situation, his insurance company limited the number--the same as Senator Sessions was talking about--limited the number of high-risk deliveries he could participate in. So if you are one of the unfortunate ones who got cut off--in other words, he had reached his cap of the number he could actually deliver, and you are a woman who has a high-risk pregnancy--there may not be one of the specialists around. Now you have to deal with just the normal OB who may not have the expertise. What does that do to not only the practice of obstetrics but, as an orthopedic surgeon, I am sure this kind of example plays out in many other areas in medicine?

Mr. ENSIGN. One clarification: We don't cap the total dollar they can be paid; we just cap the percentage. So even though they will cap at $400,000 what somebody can be paid for an insurance company, trial lawyers could still, because they can get up to 25 percent of the verdict--if the verdict is on average, as we learned from Senator Kyl, $4 million, they can still make $1 million on that one case, and they can have however many of those cases they want per year.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, the Ensign amendment is going to come down to a choice: Are you on the side of the patients or are you on the side of the trial bar, personal injury attorneys. That is what it comes down to. Personal injury attorneys will be able to, on their contingency fees--the first $150,000 they will be able to collect 33\1/3\ percent. Anything above that, we are going to cap them at collecting 25 percent. This was from an amendment that was offered in 1995 by Senator Edward Kennedy. Twenty-one Members of the current Democratic majority who were also Members of the Senate in 1995 who voted for that amendment. Let's see how that vote comes out today. It is the right amendment. Let's be on the side of the patient instead of the side of the personal injury attorneys.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, the 2,074-page health care bill before us has a provision on medical liability reform. Here are the savings: zero. Back in 1995, Senator Edward Kennedy offered an amendment on liability reform to cap attorney's fees. Twenty-one current Democratic Senators, who were Members at that time, voted for that amendment. This chart lists the Members who were in the Senate then. The Members from the other side of the aisle have made arguments that plaintiffs need these contingency fees to be that high. Let me quote an abstract of a study written in the Washington University Law Quarterly: Since 1960, the effective hourly rates of tort lawyers have increased 1,000 to 1,400 percent (in inflation-adjusted dollars), while the overall risk of nonrecovery has . . . decreased materially for such high-end tort categories as . . . medical malpractice. Mr. President, the complete study that I just quoted an abstract of, is entitled, Effective Hourly Rates of Contingency Fee Lawyers: Competing Data and Non-Competitive Fees. I would urge all of my fellow Members to review that study. Let me also quote from Howard Dean, who said: The reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people----

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.

Mr. ENSIGN. Howard Dean said: The reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth. Now that's the truth. That is a quote from Howard Dean. We have a choice. We can be on the side of personal injury attorneys or we can be on the side of the patients. I think we should be on the side of the patients and vote for the Ensign amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of the amendment.