John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Ensign pertaining to the introduction of S. 2724 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions''.)

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bill that has been introduced today by myself, along with Senators Reid, Feinstein, and Boxer, that will be the next chapter in our continuing support of one of the most pristine and magnificent areas in the United States. Since it was formed 2 million years ago, the breathtaking beauty of Lake Tahoe has awed all who have visited its crystal-clear waters and inspiring views. Mark Twain once said about the landmark, ``I thought it must surely be the fairest picture the whole world affords.'' From the Washoe tribe that originally inhabited its shores to John C. Fremont who first saw Lake Tahoe 165 years ago, this alpine lake is a part of our history and a part of our future. Next year, the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, originally enacted in 2000, will expire. Over the course of a decade, $300,000,000 was invested in environmental projects for water clarity, erosion control, and fire suppression. I am proud to have led the effort to amend the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act in 2003 in order to guarantee funding for the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act from land auctions across southern Nevada. Great work has gone into protecting this national legacy, but we are not done. The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2009 is our continued commitment to protecting this Nevada treasure for future generations. This effort, a collaboration among Senators Feinstein, Reid, Boxer, and me, authorizes $415 million for 8 years and provides for fuels reduction, Environmental Improvement Program projects, storm water management, and watershed restoration. It devotes significant funding--for the first time ever--to prevent the introduction of quagga and zebra mussels into the lake, one of the greatest threats facing Tahoe today. There is also funding for Lahontan Cutthroat Trout recovery and public outreach and education. Unfortunately, there are many threats facing Lake Tahoe. This legislation addresses each of those threats in a manner that is fiscally responsible with the most effective and efficient use of Federal funds. Hazardous fuels reduction is one of the most important investments we can make. If you have ever been to Lake Tahoe, you know that one catastrophic fire could wipe out the entire basin. Just 2 years ago, we watched in horror as the Angora fire spread and consumed land, trees, homes, and businesses. It spewed sediment and ash into the lake and turned our worst fears into reality. That is why we must be aggressive with our fuels reduction efforts. This bill also provides grants to Fire Protection Districts in the Lake Tahoe Basin to work in partnership with homeowners on defensible space. The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act is not just a Federal effort. Nevada, California, and private entities are also partners in the Environmental Improvement Program. In Nevada, where the legislature recently committed 100 million to the Environmental Improvement Program, Lake Tahoe is beloved and treasured. I had the privilege of spending several years of my childhood at the lake. My wife Darlene and I have made it a point to instill the same love for Lake Tahoe in our children. We spend our family's summer vacations there--biking, boating, waterskiing, and rock climbing. To this day, my favorite spot is the Tahoe Rim Trail looking down on Sandy Harbor, where you can see deep into the lake. You can see huge boulders. The clarity is so amazing, it is literally one of the most spectacular views in all the world. There really is no place in the world like Lake Tahoe. Let us make sure this inheritance is cared for and passed on to future generations.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bill that has been introduced today by myself, along with Senators Reid, Feinstein, and Boxer, that will be the next chapter in our continuing support of one of the most pristine and magnificent areas in the United States. Since it was formed 2 million years ago, the breathtaking beauty of Lake Tahoe has awed all who have visited its crystal-clear waters and inspiring views. Mark Twain once said about the landmark, ``I thought it must surely be the fairest picture the whole world affords.'' From the Washoe tribe that originally inhabited its shores to John C. Fremont who first saw Lake Tahoe 165 years ago, this alpine lake is a part of our history and a part of our future. Next year, the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, originally enacted in 2000, will expire. Over the course of a decade, $300,000,000 was invested in environmental projects for water clarity, erosion control, and fire suppression. I am proud to have led the effort to amend the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act in 2003 in order to guarantee funding for the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act from land auctions across southern Nevada. Great work has gone into protecting this national legacy, but we are not done. The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2009 is our continued commitment to protecting this Nevada treasure for future generations. This effort, a collaboration among Senators Feinstein, Reid, Boxer, and me, authorizes $415 million for 8 years and provides for fuels reduction, Environmental Improvement Program projects, storm water management, and watershed restoration. It devotes significant funding--for the first time ever--to prevent the introduction of quagga and zebra mussels into the lake, one of the greatest threats facing Tahoe today. There is also funding for Lahontan Cutthroat Trout recovery and public outreach and education. Unfortunately, there are many threats facing Lake Tahoe. This legislation addresses each of those threats in a manner that is fiscally responsible with the most effective and efficient use of Federal funds. Hazardous fuels reduction is one of the most important investments we can make. If you have ever been to Lake Tahoe, you know that one catastrophic fire could wipe out the entire basin. Just 2 years ago, we watched in horror as the Angora fire spread and consumed land, trees, homes, and businesses. It spewed sediment and ash into the lake and turned our worst fears into reality. That is why we must be aggressive with our fuels reduction efforts. This bill also provides grants to Fire Protection Districts in the Lake Tahoe Basin to work in partnership with homeowners on defensible space. The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act is not just a Federal effort. Nevada, California, and private entities are also partners in the Environmental Improvement Program. In Nevada, where the legislature recently committed 100 million to the Environmental Improvement Program, Lake Tahoe is beloved and treasured. I had the privilege of spending several years of my childhood at the lake. My wife Darlene and I have made it a point to instill the same love for Lake Tahoe in our children. We spend our family's summer vacations there--biking, boating, waterskiing, and rock climbing. To this day, my favorite spot is the Tahoe Rim Trail looking down on Sandy Harbor, where you can see deep into the lake. You can see huge boulders. The clarity is so amazing, it is literally one of the most spectacular views in all the world. There really is no place in the world like Lake Tahoe. Let us make sure this inheritance is cared for and passed on to future generations.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the growing number of so-called policy czars in the current administration and the impact it is having on the Senate's oversight function over the executive branch. I will begin by saying that I am not here to question the President's constitutional or statutory authority to name advisers. I think we all can agree that the President is entitled to surround himself with experts to help coordinate policy and to provide advice. However, as many of my colleagues are aware, there are some 18 new policy advisers, or czars, in the White House whose job descriptions may be a bit blurred. While some media reports cite more than 18, I think we can reasonably say that there are at least 18 new positions that have not been established by statute, are not confirmed by the Senate, and have not existed before. Early in his administration, President Obama sent a memorandum to the heads of the executive departments and agencies stating that ``a democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.'' Despite this charge, the President has taken it upon himself to nominate a number of advisers who appear to wield a great amount of power and who are seemingly without public accountability. I am not the only one who is concerned with this lack of accountability. We have seen members of the President's own party express concerns over this unusually high number of policy advisers in the White House. In February of this year, Senator Robert Byrd, the constitutional conscience of the Senate, wrote to the White House and said: The rapid and easy accumulation of power by the White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances. Like the senior Member of the Senate, I too am concerned that the Obama administration is creating what can be perceived as a shadow Cabinet by creating policy positions that do not follow the same advice and consent of the Senate as other relevant policy positions in the White House. In September, Senator Feingold, the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to the White House requesting information on the roles and responsibilities of the czars in question. His letter was specifically focused to ensure that these advisers are not in violation of the appointments clause of the Constitution. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution says the President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. . . .'' Unfortunately, because we know so little about the roles and responsibilities about the czars in question, it is simply not possible to determine whether the czars are actually officers and, therefore, constitutional. In response to Senator Feingold's letter to the administration last month, the White House claimed that the one and only role of the 18 positions in question is to advise the President. Yet when we look at the press releases and Executive orders announcing these policy advisers, they seem to have far more authority than strictly advising the President. Take, for example, Executive Order No. 13507 on April 8, 2009, announcing the establishment of the White House Office of Health Reform. The order states the office, run by a director, will ``develop and implement strategic initiatives'' and ``work with Congress.'' Is it not the role of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement strategic initiatives? In the White House press release announcing key members of his energy and environmental team, President Obama announced that Carol Browner, the new Assistant for Energy and Climate Change, would be ``indispensable in implementing an ambitious and complex energy policy.'' Again, the administration is leaning on its newly created czar positions to implement policy. This question of policy implementation was brought up during a hearing last week in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee which I attended. Senator Collins, who also wrote the White House with others in September questioning the increasing number of czars in the administration asked the panel of constitutional law experts about the issue of implementing policy. Dr. James Pfiffner, a university professor at George Mason's School of Public Policy, testified that ``with respect to the implementation of health policy, I think that's very troubling.'' Lee Casey, a former attorney-adviser in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, testified that ``by law,'' these czars ``cannot implement.'' Casey did suggest, however, that Congress could ask what the administration means by ``implement.'' I believe that is the true question here. What exactly are these czars doing? Are they simply advising the President, or are they actually implementing policy? A few of my colleagues have come to the Senate floor to offer amendments prohibiting funds to these czars if they are directing actions to the Cabinet officials who have been confirmed by the Senate. Other amendments would ensure that the czars will respond to reasonable requests to testify before Congress, therefore, allowing our proper oversight in this body. Unfortunately, these amendments were defeated on procedural grounds. I even offered an amendment during the Finance Committee's health reform markup that will require the czar handling health care issues be subject to Senate confirmation. My amendment was defeated on a party- line vote. What is the answer? How can Congress and the American public feel confident the people who are appointed by the executive branch are appropriately carrying out the duties they are supposed to? More importantly, how can we be sure the balance of power does not get out of balance? I think we all have the right to know exactly what these policy czars are doing, to whom they are reporting, and who is responsible and accountable if something goes wrong. If the President can answer these questions for us, I think we will all feel better about this process. Health Care Reform Madam President, I wish to talk briefly about the health care reform bill that is going to be coming before this body in just a couple of short weeks. There are certain facts that we know. We have not seen the bill because it has just been written and given to the Congressional Budget Office for the official scoring to be done. What we do know about the bill, though, is that there is over a $400 billion cut in Medicare. We know that. We know that people who currently have health care, their premiums will go up. That is according to the Congressional Budget Office. We know for many Americans--and mostly this will fall on people making less than $250,000 a year--their taxes will go up. We know also there will be government bureaucrats making decisions on health care. We also know people who currently have policies they like, especially those who have Medicare Advantage, millions will lose their current policy because over $120 billion is being taken out of the Medicare Advantage Program. We need to ask ourselves a couple of very fundamental questions. Does anyone really believe we can have a trillion-dollar health care bill and not add one dime to our deficit, as the President promised? Does anybody seriously believe that? How does adding a government-run plan, this so-called public option, which mirrors the Medicare Program, actually fix the health care problem when Medicare itself is going bankrupt? Everyone agrees Medicare is going bankrupt. Yet we want to add a new government entitlement program into our health care system? That is going to fix the problem? Do the American people really trust Washington, politicians, and bureaucrats to run their health care system? I believe we need to design a patient-centered health care system instead of a government system or an insurance company system. Let's design a health care system which makes health care more affordable and more accessible by encouraging people to make healthier choices, such as quitting smoking, eating better, and exercising more. That will improve people's quality of life, but it will also lower the cost of health care for all Americans. Let's enact real medical liability reform to stop the practice of defensive medicine which, once again, will lower the cost of health care in the United States. It will save the government over $50 billion, and it will save the private sector a similar amount, and these are both conservative estimates. Lastly, instead of taking $400 billion out of Medicare to fund a new entitlement program, let's work on getting the fraud out of Medicare and let's use that savings to preserve that system that has been so incredibly important for seniors for the last several decades. I believe we need to start over. We do need to take a bipartisan approach to health care reform. We need to actually forget about whether we are Republicans or Democrats and let's just be Americans. Let's sit down together ahead of time, not based on ideology but based on what systems can work in America for the American people to achieve better quality, lower costs in our health care system today that puts the patient at the center of our health care system instead of a government bureaucrat or an insurance company. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I rise today to discuss why meaningful medical liability reform must be included in the health care reform package. Americans spend far more on lawsuits than any other country, and more than twice as much as all countries except for one. According to a recent study conducted by the Tillinghast-Towers Perrin Group, the direct cost of health care lawsuits is $30 billion per year. These costs are multiplied by the indirect costs of lawsuits, especially doctors ordering costly tests out of fear of being sued. Estimates of wasted money spent on unneeded tests range from over $100 billion each year to nearly $250 billion annually. In a 2006 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, it suggests that as much as 40 percent of medical liability lawsuits are frivolous. Medical liability insurance premiums are threatening the stability of our Nation's health care system. These rates are forcing many physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers to move out of high liability States, limit the scope of their practices, and some even to close their doors permanently. This crisis is affecting more and more patients. It is threatening access to reliable, quality health care services. I have a good friend from Nevada who practices obstetrics. In his practice he specializes in high-risk pregnancies. Because of medical liability problems that we have seen in the past several years, his insurance company limits the number of high-risk pregnancies in which he can assist. If you are a woman and you are pregnant with a high-risk pregnancy, it would seem to me you would want the doctors who specialize in high- risk pregnancies to see you. This only makes sense. However, because of the medical liability crisis we are facing in this country, the best of the best are limited in the number of cases they can handle. Because of the unaffordable medical liability insurance premiums, it is now common for obstetricians to not deliver babies and for other specialists to no longer provide emergency calls or provide certain high-risk procedures. Ask yourself this question: What if I were in need of an emergency procedure? What if I were the woman who had a high-risk pregnancy and could not find a specialist to provide me with the health care I needed? The medical liability crisis is threatening patient access to reliable, quality health services all across America. Additionally, costly medical liability premiums have forced some emergency rooms to shut down temporarily in recent years. In my home State of Nevada, our level 1 trauma center was closed for 10 days in 2002. This closure left every patient within a 10,000- square-mile area unserved by a level 1 trauma center. Unfortunately, a gentleman by the name of Jim Lawson was one of those in need of a trauma unit at that time. Jim lived in Las Vegas and was just 1 month shy of his 60th birthday. He had recently returned from visiting his daughter in California. When he returned, he was injured in a severe car accident. Jim should have been taken to the University Medical Center's level 1 trauma center. Unfortunately, it was closed. Instead, Jim was taken to another emergency room where he was stabilized and then transferred to Salt Lake City's trauma center. Tragically, Jim never made it that far. He died that day due to cardiac arrest caused by blunt force from physical trauma. Why was Nevada's only level 1 trauma center closed that day? Due to the simple fact that doctors could not afford the medical liability insurance premiums, and there were not enough doctors to provide the care. Ultimately, the State had to step in and take over the liability to reopen the trauma center. Our State has caps on how much someone can sue for, so medical liability insurance is affordable. More than 35 percent of the neurosurgeons have altered their emergency or trauma call coverage because of the medical liability crisis. This means patients with head injuries or who are in need of neurosurgical services must be transferred to other facilities, delaying much needed care. Doctor Alamo of Henderson, NV, brought another example of this problem to my attention. Doctor Alamo was presented with a teenager suffering from myasthenia gravis. She was in a crisis and in need of immediate medical treatment. Because of the medical liability situation, there was no emergency neurologist on-call to assist this young woman. Dr. Alamo called several neurologists in the area and none of them wanted to take her case because of the medical liability situation. So Dr. Alamo had the young woman transported all the way to California by helicopter to receive the medical care she so desperately needed. These kinds of situations should not happen and should not be forced to happen because of the medical liability crisis we face in America. Stories such as these are all too common across our country. To address the growing medical liability crisis in my home State of Nevada, the State enacted legislation that includes a cap on noneconomic damages and a cap on total damages for trauma care. Several other States have enacted similar reforms. This should not be a Republican or a Democratic issue. Simply put, the current medical liability crisis means patients cannot find access to care when they need it most in many areas. Without Federal legislation, the exodus of providers in the practice of medicine will continue, and patients will find it increasingly difficult to obtain needed care. As we work on comprehensive health care reform, one of our primary goals must be to enact meaningful medical liability reform to help patients access care. As you know, President Obama recently addressed the entire Congress on health reform. During his speech he said: I do not believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. The President went on to say he asked Secretary Sebelius to move forward on demonstration projects in individual States to test ways to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. Let's face reality. There is no doubt that defensive medicine occurs every day and that the costs to the health care system are staggering. As I mentioned earlier, tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted every year due to the practice of defensive medicine, largely in an attempt to avoid frivolous, junk lawsuits. Just think of how many uninsured patients we could cover with this money or how much cheaper the premiums would be for those who already have insurance. We must stop playing games and start doing something real to address important health care issues. Unfortunately, the Finance Committee bill that was voted on last week only includes a meaningless sense of the Senate on medical liability reform. That seems to parrot some of the President's remarks. Specifically, the language in the bill expresses the Sense of the Senate that States should be encouraged to develop and test alternatives to the current civil litigation system as a way of improving patient safety, reducing medical errors, encouraging the efficient resolution of disputes, increasing the availability of prompt and fair resolution of disputes and on and on and on. It is only a Sense of the Senate. The provision also expresses the sense of the Senate that Congress should consider establishing a State demonstration program to evaluate alternatives to the current civil litigation system. Let's be honest with ourselves. The Sense of the Senate is fluff. It ignores the substantial progress many States have already made with medical liability reform. Capping noneconomic damage awards has been highly successful in a number of States, such as Texas, and is something we should consider as part of health care reform. It is important for the Senate to consider capping punitive damages, limiting attorneys' fees, and providing that if multiple defendants contributed to a mistake, each defendant should pay only for the portion of the mistake for which they are responsible. So let's do the right thing. Let's enact real medical liability reform rather than a meaningless Sense of the Senate. As part of the health care debate, I will be offering a comprehensive medical liability reform amendment that sets reasonable limits on noneconomic damages while also providing for unlimited economic damages. My amendment is a responsible reform measure that includes joint liability and collateral source improvements, and limits on attorney fees according to a sliding scale. My legislation also includes an expert witness provision to ensure that relevant medical experts serve as trial witnesses instead of so-called professional witnesses who are too often used to further the abuse of the system. What happens today in our medical liability system is we have professional witnesses. Too often they are not a specialist in the field for which they are called to testify. Yet because juries do not know they are not a true expert, their testimony is allowed to influence liability claims. My amendment uses a Texas style of caps on noneconomic damages that provides a cap of $250,000 for a judgment against a physician or health care provider. In addition, the patient can be awarded up to $250,000 for a judgment against one health care institution. Under Texas law, judgments against two or more health care institutions cannot exceed $500,000, with each institution not liable for more than half that. In total, noneconomic damages cannot exceed $750,000. Medical liability reform works, and it is already turning the tide against frivolous lawsuits and outrageous jury awards in some States. We have seen it in California, in Texas, and in my home State of Nevada, where the number of medical malpractice lawsuits has decreased dramatically. It has been a crisis driving doctors out of business for too long. It is time to protect patients across the country and to ensure access to quality health care. To illustrate my point, I would like to tell you about the success of medical liability reform in Texas. Over 16,000 new physicians have come to Texas since reform was enacted. The number of high-risk medical specialists in Texas is growing. Since 2003, Texas has added 650 emergency room doctors, 350 heart doctors, over 200 obstetricians, 160 orthopedic surgeons, and almost 60 neurosurgeons. These additions are not limited to urban Texas. The ranks of rural obstetricians have grown by almost 30 percent. Twenty-two rural counties have added an obstetrician and 10 counties have added their first OB. The statistics go on and on about the success in Texas. In addition to improvements in access to health care, charity care has also greatly expanded due to medical liability reform. Today, Texas hospitals are rendering $600 million more in charity care annually than they were just 6 years ago--$600 million more in charity care by hospitals than they were giving before medical liability reform. Liability savings have allowed hospitals to upgrade medical equipment, expand emergency rooms, expand outpatient services, staff Emergency Rooms 24/7 with high risk specialists, improve salaries for nurses, and launch patient safety programs. Without reforms and the attendant savings, these healthy developments would not have been possible. Lawsuit reform has been a magnet for attracting doctors and the funding mechanism to improve access to care and enhance patient safety. Physicians have seen a decrease in their medical liability premiums. Since 2003, physicians in Texas have saved, collectively, almost $600 million in their liability premiums. Today, most Texas doctors are paying lower liability premiums than they were almost 10 years ago. All major physician liability carriers in Texas have cut their rates since the passage of the reforms and most of them by double digits. Texas's reforms prove lawsuit reform can improve access to care, expand the number of doctors and types of care hospitals are able to offer, and help reduce medical costs. According to a conservative estimate by the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, if Congress adopted only a few of the proposed lawsuit reforms, the deficit would decrease by $54 billion over 10 years. Madam President, $54 billion is how much it would save the government. To put this in perspective, this is twice as much as the Finance Committee plans to raise by taxing medical devices. During the Finance Committee markup, CBO's Director, Dr. Elmendorf, added that he felt the savings to the private sector would be approximately equal to the $54 billion saved by the government. Madam President, $54 billion to decrease the deficit, and the savings in the private sector is another $54 billion. Under this conservative estimation, which is substantially less than what third-party estimates have shown, enacting medical liability reform would save at least $100 billion between the government and the private sector over 10 years. So why would the Democrats leave medical liability reform out? Well, they did put a Sense of the Senate in the Finance Committee bill. What are the savings from the Sense of the Senate to the private sector and the government? A big, fat zero. I will tell you why the Democrats left out medical liability reform. It is because it would hurt a Democrat special interest group: they are known as trial lawyers. Howard Dean, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, put it simply: [T]he 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. I hope as the debate unfolds on the floor that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will change their mind about enacting serious medical liability reform. My medical care access protection amendment is not a battle of right versus left. It is a battle of right versus wrong. This amendment is the right prescription for patients. We need to secure patient access to quality health care services when they need it the most. I urge my colleagues to adopt this commonsense amendment when it is brought to the floor. One last comment. We are going to be adding what is called the doctor fix. We are going to be adding the doctor fix unpaid for. It is $250 billion over the next 10 years. I have been talking a lot about the Federal debt and what we are doing to our children. The other side wants to do what we all want to do around here; that is, make sure doctors' fees in Medicare are not cut because they are already paid at a very low rate, but they are doing that without honoring what they talked about known as ``pay-go''. We heard a lot about that during the campaign: We need to pay for everything. We cannot keep adding to the deficit. They accused this side of the aisle as being fiscally irresponsible. Now they are going to add $250 billion, take it off the table, and say: Well, it does not count. We are just going to add to the deficit $250 billion; that we can fix the doctors' payments, but we are not going to pay for it. I think this is pretty outrageous. That is why we are going to have amendments to attempt to fix what is happening to the doctors but to do it in a fiscally responsible way so we are not adding to our children's and our grandchildren's tax burden in the future. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mel Martinez came to the United States from Cuba at the age of 15 as part of a humanitarian effort called Operation Peter Pan. We are all familiar with the character of Peter Pan he is careless and does not want to grow up. He is sometimes selfish and often conceited. It is ironic because Mel is the opposite of all of those attributes. Mel Martinez arrived on our shores with no family and only the hope for a better life. He had to grow up incredibly fast, and he did so with great determination. He worked hard to learn English, graduate from college and law school, and build a legal career and solid reputation. And then he decided to selflessly give back to the community and country that had given him so much. He rose to the highest levels of our government as the 12th Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President George W. Bush. He served from 2001 to 2003, an especially trying time in our Nation's history. But his agency's focus on rebuilding Lower Manhattan provided necessary healing for a city and its citizens. In 2005, Mel was sworn in as the first Cuban American U.S. Senator. It was a privilege to serve with him and to join together on many legislative efforts. Most significant was our work on expanding freedom and democracy for the people of Cuba. Cubans have been stifled for too long by a brutal communist dictator. They deserve a voice and an opportunity for a better life. Nobody knows that better than Mel Martinez, and I look forward to continuing our fight to support pro- democracy efforts. Most recently, I was pleased to work with Mel on legislation to promote U.S. tourist destinations abroad. Florida and Nevada miss out on vital international tourism dollars because the United States has no entity to promote our amazing tourism opportunities to other countries. I am confident that the Travel Promotion Act, cosponsored by Senator Martinez, will pass the Senate shortly and will represent another accomplishment by my former colleague to improve the lives of his constituents and fuel success for all Americans. I thank Mel Martinez for his decades of public service in Florida and here in our Nation's Capital. He proved to us all that the hope for a better life combined with determination and the limitless opportunities here in America can make any dream come true.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2648, and I send a modification to the desk.

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to propose an amendment adding $172 million for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program and offset it with corporate welfare funding currently in the bill. The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, known as SCAAP, provides Federal payments to States and localities that incur correctional officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens with at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of State or local law and are incarcerated for at least four consecutive days during the reporting period. This program also reimburses State, county, parish, tribal, or other municipal governments for the costs associated with the prosecution of criminal cases declined by local U.S. Attorney's Offices. While we have made strides in securing our border, illegal immigration remains a significant problem, and the Federal Government should bear the additional burden placed on States and local governments. While this amendment does not fix our problems with illegal immigration, it does help local communities address costs associated with the incarceration of illegal immigrants who continually and repeatedly violate the laws of our country. This will bring this program's funding up to the 2009 level of $400 million. This increase will match the level the other Chamber, the House of Representatives, accepted by a nearly unanimous vote of 405 to 1. With increased funding for SCAAP, we can keep more repeat offenders off our streets and reduce some of the catch-and-release practices instituted by many communities that just don't have the resources to keep these criminals where they belong, which is behind bars. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to ensure that critical funds reach our State, county, parish, tribal, and municipal governments to help battle the problems associated with illegal immigration and to keep lawbreaking illegal immigrants off our streets. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal relating to this matter.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, what this motion is similar to the motions I have made on previous spending bills. What we are asking the Appropriations Committee to do is to fund our government at the 2009 level. In 2009, we saw huge funding increases. Then, with all of the spending programs, the government has seen massive increases on top of the increases in spending we had last year. So what we are saying is, while businesses, families, local governments, and State governments across the country are cutting their budgets, the Federal Government should freeze spending levels to 2009 levels. Let us not go on this massive increase in spending. We understand the census, which we do just once every 10 years, is not part of the normal budget process, so we allowed for that. We allow for the census to be funded. But everything else should be funded at 2009 levels. We allow the Appropriations Committee to set the priorities; that is, what funding is to go into which particular program. Some programs are more effective than others, and they may have different priorities. That should be the prerogative of the Appropriations Committee. But what this body should be doing is sending a message to the American people that we care about our children and our grandchildren. What we are seeing right now is that we are borrowing 43 cents of every dollar we spend. Think about that. Think about a family or a business borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar they spend. That is what we are doing. I think this next chart illustrates very well on whom this burden is going to fall. The picture of this young lady was taken out in the public. She had a sign around her which said: I am already $38,375 in debt, and I only own a dollhouse. It is a picture of a cute little girl, and it would really be a cute picture if it wasn't so sad because it is true. Every child in America has a huge debt burden put on them because of the spending. During the last many years we have heard about the spending programs. The other side of the aisle actually ran on fiscal discipline. They said we spent too much money under the Bush administration. By the way, I agreed with that statement. I think we did spend too much money during the first part of this decade. But the spending levels now, in comparison, are skyrocketing. We are adding trillions and trillions of dollars in debt to future generations. So my motion, very simply, says: Instead of this large increase in this spending bill, we are going to live at last year's numbers. We are not even going to cut in ways State governments and local governments are doing. They are cutting. We are going to live within last year's funding levels--which were, by the way, increased dramatically. Last year, I think the same appropriations bill got a 15-percent increase. Let's at least live at last year's level instead of living on huge increases this year. I think this motion is the responsible thing to do for future generations and for the future of our country. We have to think about this debt. What is this debt going to do? We are hearing about the weakening dollar. There are articles every day in financial magazines about what a weak dollar means to America. The higher the debt, the weaker the dollar gets. We are adding trillions of dollars onto the debt. That weak dollar is going to hurt our economy into the future. We have to worry about not only inflation, but hyperinflation. We have to worry about whether jobs are going to continue to go overseas because of a weak dollar. Every country that has tried to handle their debt by devaluing their currency, which is what seems to be going on now--has never succeeded. The only way to control your debt is to get spending under control. That is what we have to do in this body. That is what we have to do in this country. My motion says: Time out. Time out from all the spending. Let's at least live at last year's spending level. Let's put a freeze on Federal spending so we are not hurting future generations. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, this is a simple motion to recommit the bill to put it at last year's funding level, plus the money for the census. The census is once every 10 years, and it will allow for that funding increase. But in this era of record deficits and uncontrolled Washington spending, we are living under last year's spending levels with this motion. We need to get serious in this body about getting our spending under control. We have to start with appropriations bills. We know we have to cut spending on entitlements. Let's start now by living under last year's spending levels, instead of the large increases we are having on appropriations bill after appropriations bill. My motion allows the Appropriations Committee to determine what levels programs would be at, but we are not going to allow across-the- board increases.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I just want to applaud the senior Senator from Nevada, the leader of the Senate, for this resolution recognizing the 145th anniversary of Nevada's statehood.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President. I wish to honor the memory of a remarkable human being who inspired those around him with kindness, generosity, and devotion. He was a man who loved his family and understood the value of education. Lately, it seems that heads of corporations and big businesses have become about as popular as lawyers and politicians. Well, you don't have to look further than the legacy of Frank Fertitta, Jr., to understand that compassion and respect can very much be part of a successful mission statement. The name Fertitta may be best known in Las Vegas, NV, but the lessons of how this gaming patriarch lived his life should be emulated around the world. Frank Fertitta, Jr., moved to Las Vegas in 1960 with his lovely wife Victoria. He started as a bellman and slowly worked his way through the ranks--dealer, pit boss, general manager. But what he will be remembered for professionally is his vision and understanding of business and human nature. In 1976, Frank opened a 5,000-square-foot building called The Casino. Those around him had their doubts about whether this venture would succeed. Instead, Frank became a pioneer of a gaming niche that catered to locals. His little experiment eventually became the Palace Station. Thirty-three years after that first venture, Station Casinos today has 18 casinos and resorts and employs more than 13,000 people. And today, another generation of Fertittas is working to keep the vision of Frank Fertitta, Jr., alive and well. His success, however, is not what made Frank Fertitta, Jr., so extraordinary. It was his character and integrity that truly made him an example to all. With the utmost respect, he was called Mr. Fertitta by longtime employees and patrons of Station Casinos. That is because he showed respect to all he came into contact with, and they knew it. I was fortunate to know Mr. Fertitta and call him a friend. He was genuine and unwavering in his support. The kind of person you were blessed to have in your life. Described as quiet and polite, family and faith were the foundations of his life. Mr. Fertitta showed how a successful, hard-working businessman can also be a dedicated family man. Each week his whole family gathered at his and Victoria's home for Sunday dinner. This was a tradition that all of the Fertittas have cherished over the years. Anyone who knew him knew his family came first. He was also a consistent and valued friend to many philanthropic organizations in Las Vegas. He and Victoria were involved with the University of Nevada Las Vegas, Bishop Gorman High School, Catholic Charities of Southern Nevada, the Nevada Cancer Institute, Opportunity Village, St. Judes Ranch, and the Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health. It is one thing to be generous with your resources. It is another thing to raise your children to also be generous with theirs. That was part of Mr. Fertitta's success. He was proud that his children had become such generous contributors to the community. They did so because he set such a strong example. Las Vegas lost a visionary with the recent passing of Mr. Fertitta. He taught us all how to respect others--regardless of one's status, how to dream big, and how to give back to our communities. There aren't many people like Mr. Fertitta in the world. We should all take a page from his mission statement to ensure that his brand of success lives on.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, this is a very simple motion. It just says that at this time of runaway deficits, of out-of-control Federal spending, we are going to try to do a little something. We are just going to take this appropriations bill and say with regard to last year's level, which was increased fairly substantially, we are going to freeze it to last year's level. As State budgets, local budgets, and family budgets are all being cut, trimmed, and tightened around the country, Washington says: You know what, we are going to print money. We are just going to borrow from our children and grandchildren and continue to print money and print money and push it off onto the next generation. It is time for this body to show some fiscal restraint. So let's cut $4 billion out of this spending bill and bring it back to last year's level. Let the Appropriations Committee determine where that spending is, but let's actually show some fiscal responsibility.

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

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, tomorrow, from what I understand, I will have a motion to recommit this bill with instructions that hopefully will be part of the unanimous consent agreement. Let me describe exactly what my motion to recommit says. Last week, I did a similar motion to recommit on the T-HUD appropriations bill because that bill was dramatically increased. And this week's appropriations bill on Interior has yet another huge increase. In 2008 to 2009, the increase was 4 percent. This year, the increase is 16.28 percent. Every local government, State government, probably almost everyone in the United States is cutting their budgets. Almost every business is cutting its budget. Most households in America are cutting their budgets because of these difficult economic times. But what do we do in Washington, DC? We print money and we dramatically increase spending. The National Taxpayers Union has agreed with me, and they are asking the Senate to vote ``YES'' on my motion to recommit, which I will be offering tomorrow. They are saying we need to have fiscal discipline at this time. And we just cannot keep running up spending around here. That is what we are doing. If we look at each one of the appropriations bills so far this year, Legislative Branch, last year was an 11-percent increase, this year it is about a 5-percent increase; Homeland Security, almost 10-percent last year, and it is going up by 7 percent this year; Energy and Water had the smallest increase; Agriculture had about a 13-percent increase last year and about the same percentage increase this year; T-HUD, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations, had a 13-percent increase last year and almost a 23-percent increase this year; and, of course, the bill we have before us now, which is Interior, a 4-percent increase last year, and over a 16-percent increase this year. By the way, here is the inflation rate. Last year was negative inflation. This year, there is almost no inflation. Yet around here we keep running up our deficits. So far this year we have $1.56 trillion in deficits. This says it pretty well: 43 percent of every dollar we are spending this year is deficit spending. We are borrowing from future generations so we can give us what we want, so we can get reelected, so we can go back home and pass out the goodies. That is what a lot of these appropriations bills are--they are passing out the goodies, they are increasing spending on the backs of future generations. When are we going to get serious in this body about fiscal restraint? The other side of the aisle criticized us during the last 7-8 years for spending too much money. In some regards, they were right. But compared to what they are doing right now, we were fiscal conservatives by a large degree. What they are doing is dramatically raising Federal spending. The problem with this increase we have before us today in this spending bill, over 16 percent, is if we keep these kinds of spending increases up, it will double the spending within 5 to 6 years. What happens this year is we spend more money. That gets put in the baseline budget for next year, so any increase next year is on top of the increase this year. And so each year is increased and increased and then increased some more. We never seem to go backward or reduce spending in this body. We only go higher and higher as far as spending levels are concerned. It seems there is no limit to our appetite for spending around here. The American people have woken up. And I am actually the most encouraged I have been, I think, in my entire political career, watching people getting involved, hearing from them from all over my State of Nevada, and seeing them all over the country getting involved, saying: It is time that we think about the greater good in America; that we do not think about pet projects or pet programs or any of these massive spending increases. It is time we show fiscal responsibility and we start getting back to what the Framers of our Constitution envisioned when they saw a limited Federal Government, not this expansive Federal Government. Tomorrow, when we vote, I urge hope this Chamber will say: Now is the time that we are going to start showing some fiscal restraint. We are going to say: Yes, we will tighten our belts. We will snug it up a little bit. We will make some of the tougher votes. We will say NO to some of the special interest groups around the country that come to our offices every year for more and more money. Let's make priorities. Let's look at things that are working and some that are not. Let's take the money away from the ones that are not and reduce the deficit. That is what we need to be thinking about in this body. I hope my words do not fall on deaf ears. I hope people in this body will actually start thinking about future generations instead of just thinking about their favorite projects that they want to fund and their special interest groups to whom they want to pay attention. Mr. President, I have concluded my remarks. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, my home State of Nevada has seen devastating effects from this recession. The foreclosure crisis has turned neighborhoods across my State literally almost into ghost towns. I have long argued the crash of the housing market has been at the root of our economic crisis. We have to focus on fixing the housing problem in this country if we want the economy to turn around. In February, I offered a bill called the Fix Housing First Act. This would have fixed the housing problem; it would have turned the housing market around in this country. I believe it would have created jobs all across this country, including in my home State of Nevada. My Fix Housing First Act would have let American home owners refinance their mortgages at around a 4-percent interest rate in a 30- year fixed mortgage. This would have meant an average of around $300 to $400 savings per month for the average homeowner in the United States and back in my home State of Nevada. Additionally, my bill included a provision, produced by Senator Johnny Isakson from Georgia, that was a $15,000 home buyer tax credit to incentivize home ownership. The tax credit would have been a stepping stone for our country to begin to come out of the housing crisis. While my bill was defeated along party lines, we were able to pass an $8,000 first-time home buyer tax credit, sponsored by myself and Senator Ben Cardin, from Maryland. Today I join my colleagues in a bipartisan manner to extend this $8,000 first time home buyer tax credit for another 6 months, until June of next year. Unless Congress acts, this $8,000 is set to expire at the end of November. There is evidence that is showing the tax credit is working. If we do not extend this tax credit, homes will not be saved, and they will likely go into foreclosure. We in the Senate need to act in a bipartisan fashion to extend the first-time home buyer tax credit of $8,000. It is the right thing to do to get housing back on the track, especially in States such as Nevada, Florida, California, and Arizona. These states are still suffering when it comes to the housing industry. Housing is at the root of a lot of the economic problems we have in this country. I encourage this body to act. Chairman Bernanke said the other day the recession is over. At 9.7 percent unemployment rate in this country, I don't think the recession looks to be over to those people still out of a job. My State of Nevada has over a 12-percent unemployment rate. Clark County, where Las Vegas is, has over a 13- percent unemployment rate. I don't think folks living there think the recession is over. We need to continue to work to fix this economy, and this first-time home buyer tax credit is a good place to start. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I will have a motion momentarily. I will wait for the manager of the bill to come on the floor. I will be offering a motion to recommit the bill back to the Appropriations Committee at last year's spending level. On the front of this bill, it says that last year's spending level was at a level which included last year's spending, plus the stimulus money. So when they say this year's spending level, it looks as if there is a huge cut, when in fact, there is actually a 23-percent increase in this year's spending bill over last year's. So the motion I am about to make is asking to report the bill back to the committee, where the committee can make whatever specific recommendations within that level but to do that at last year's spending level. I have heard the rhetoric from politicians in the House, Senate, and the President talking about how serious a problem we have with the deficit and how serious a problem we have with the debt in our country. That is one of the reasons you saw hundreds of thousands of people on the Mall here this last weekend. People are really concerned about the direction of our country. We have heard economic experts talking about America actually approaching its borrowing capacity. If our country ever reaches its borrowing capacity, it will be an economic disaster. It would be like a business having many expenses and no cash in the bank. The bank and all its lenders saying: Sorry, we are not giving you any more money. Well, we owe people from all over the world. We owe sovereign wealth funds. We owe China, Japan, European countries and other sovereign wealth funds all over the world. They hold a lot of our debt. The more we continue to borrow, the more we become beholden to these other countries. And when the next trillion dollars needs to be borrowed, what if these other countries say to us: No, we are not going to do it. The other thing they could also say is: Yes, we will give you that next trillion dollars. We will loan the money to you, but it is going to be at a higher interest than you want to pay. And by the way, the other debt we also hold that you owe us, we are going to raise the interest on that. You see, we are not going to be in a position to say: No, that is not exactly what we want to do. The more debt we run up, the less of a position we will be in as a country to be able to bargain. We literally cannot sustain the level of debt we are developing here in the United States. I see the pages down in front of us here--this younger generation. The younger generations across our country are being saddled with the debt this Congress, this President, the past President, and past Congresses have run up. Unfortunately, instead of slowing that borrowing down, we are increasing it at a faster and faster rate. So this is a very simple motion. This just says: Let's start taking these appropriations bills and let's at least start freezing spending. That is basically what this motion suggests. It just says: Freeze spending. By the way, a lot of the programs that are in this bill were already dramatically increased in the stimulus bill. So not only did we increase last year over the previous year with the regular appropriations process, we then added money to the stimulus bill on top of that. So what did they do this year? Instead of being fiscally responsible and saying: Let's at least freeze spending--which I will bet the American people would even suggest since we are in tough economic times, that maybe we should do a little haircut and cut spending a little bit--no, no, the majority has said we are actually going to increase the level of spending in this bill by 23 percent, way above inflation, and this is at a time in our country when we cannot afford it. So I think this is a place to start showing some fiscal responsibility, and there will be other opportunities where we can as well. We all know entitlement spending is out of control in this country. We all know that needs to be addressed. Medicare and Medicaid alone can bankrupt the country. The President talked about that the other night. That is one of the reasons we need to actually get entitlements under control in our health care bill--which, by the way, none of the health care bills do. We need to get entitlement spending under control, but we also need to get what is called discretionary spending, or these annual appropriations bills, under control as well. We are not talking about small amounts of money anymore. Even though the entitlements are the biggest part of the budget, the discretionary or the annual spending bills are a very significant amount of money these days. As I mentioned before, this year's bill is a 23-percent increase over last year's. The committee report says it isn't, that it is actually a cut from last year. But let me explain exactly how they do that. They took last year's bill and added on the money we spent in the stimulus bill to last year's bill. They say that is what we spent last year, so that this year we are going to spend less than we did in the combination of those two bills. They call that a cut in spending. Well, that is phony Washington math. That is how we end up with the kinds of deficits and the debt we have in this country. People claim a cut in spending when it is actually, if you compare apples with apples, a 23- percent increase over last year. So I think it is time. It really is time. Republicans and Democrats should join together in thinking about not even the next generation, but let's think about today. Let's think about what we are doing to this country today. Let's start showing some fiscal responsibility around here. Let's start joining together as Americans in not running up this massive amount of government debt. Let's start saying no to some of the special interests that come into our office. Let's start by saying that. So, Madam President, I have a motion at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.