John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the medical liability reform bills before us today: one is a comprehensive reform bill that I introduced, and the other specifically deals with OB/GYNs, which Senator Santorum introduced. There are a couple of very important points to make on this legislation. First of all, Senator Nelson, a friend of mine, just spoke about the number of uninsured Americans. Over the next couple of days, we are going to vote on legislation to establish Small Business Health Plans. This is good legislation that is intended to help reduce the number of uninsured. But another problem related to the number of uninsured Americans is the high cost of health care. The cost of health care is making it too expensive for people to afford health insurance. One of the primary drivers of health care costs is increasing medical liability premiums for health care providers. Doctors are being forced out of their practices because they cannot afford to practice anymore. We saw the trauma center in southern Nevada close for a 10-day period. It serves 10,000 square miles. People died because of the closure. We have also seen maternity wards close across the country. Neurosurgeons and other specialists are no longer taking calls unless the calls are for cases that are not very risky. Specialists can't afford to take high-risk cases because they risk losing everything they have based on seeing one case. I have a good friend in southern Nevada who practices obstetrics. In his practice, he specializes in high-risk pregnancies. Because of the medical liability problems that we have seen in the past several years, his insurance company limits the number of high-risk pregnancies with which he can assist. If you are a woman and you are pregnant with a high-risk pregnancy, it would seem to me that you would want the best of the best to take care of you. That only makes sense. But 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 see. If you are a doctor in America today--this is becoming a truism--you will be sued. If you practice long enough, you will be sued in America today. We need to deal with the number of frivolous lawsuits that are clogging our legal system. Every American needs to ask themselves this fundamental question: If you were in an automobile accident or if you needed care in an emergency room, and the specialist you wanted to see wasn't available, wasn't there, was no longer practicing, or wouldn't take the call, would you accept the reason that this happened is because this body, the Senate, wouldn't even take up a bill and debate medical liability reform, which could bring down health care costs, as it has in several States across America? If you were a mother who had a high-risk pregnancy or any type of pregnancy, and you couldn't get obstetrical care, how would you feel if the reason you couldn't get care was because your doctor left practice or left the State because medical liability insurance premiums were too high? We have a serious problem. According to the American Medical Association, 21 States are in crisis today, 6 States are not, and the rest of the States are headed toward crisis. The six States that are not in crisis have all passed meaningful medical liability reform. The bill before us today is modeled after one of those States: the State of Texas. The State of Texas has a $250,000 cap for a judgment against a health care provider. In addition, the patient can be awarded up to $250,000 for a judgment against one health care institution. If two or more institutions are involved, the patient can receive up to $500,000, with each institution not liable for more than $250,000. Thus, injured patients can be awarded noneconomic damages for pain and suffering totaling $750,000. The legislation has no limits on economic damages for necessary health care expenses that you may incur over your lifetime. You can sue for unlimited economic damages. But, the caps on noneconomic damages are key to whether the legislation is effective. Let's compare a couple of States, Texas and Pennsylvania. Texas has enacted meaningful medical liability insurance reform; Pennsylvania has not. These are just two examples. In Texas, doctors are moving back to the State. As a matter of fact, nine hundred doctors specializing in emergency care and high-risk procedures have moved to Texas since 2003, when Texas law was enacted. Texas infants and children now have better access to specialists. Ninety-four pediatric specialists alone have moved into the State. In contrast, Pennsylvania doctors are leaving the State. I believe there are more medical schools in Pennsylvania than practically anywhere else in the country, yet doctors are leaving the State--not because they don't love Pennsylvania, but because they cannot afford to practice in Pennsylvania. In Texas, the premiums for medical liability insurance policies are going down. In Pennsylvania, they continue to skyrocket. Because of medical liability reform in Texas, 30 new medical liability insurers have come into the State to write policies for doctors. In Pennsylvania, medical liability insurers are leaving the State. The difference here is that doctors in Texas can shop among 30 different medical liability insurers. And, market forces bring insurance prices down. Because of all of this, it is becoming less expensive to practice medicine in Texas and more expensive to practice in Pennsylvania. The bill I offered, which is before us today, is modeled after the Texas legislation. The bill establishes caps on noneconomic damages. The bill also limits attorneys' fees. This provision will ensure that patients receive a larger percentage of their damage awards. I believe that the person who is injured with a true medical malpractice case should get the award instead of having the award go to higher and higher attorneys' fees. My legislation also includes an expert witness provision to ensure that relevant medical experts serve as trial witnesses. This provision is extremely important. Today, if you have a medical liability case before a jury, they bring in so-called professional witnesses to testify who are used to further abuse the system. There is a whole industry of these so-called professional witnesses who travel around the country and testify. The problem is that a lot of these so-called professional witnesses are not experts in the field in which they are testifying. This bill says that if you are, for instance, testifying in a neurology case, then you should be a specialist in neurology. I know this is common sense, but that is not the way our courts work today. This bill would require a specialist or an expert to truly be an expert in the field in which they are testifying. This bill has been contentious for several years. The trial lawyers and their cohorts spent $182 million over the last few elections. And they have gotten back out, just in medical liability awards, $18 billion. That is a 10,000-percent return on their investment in politics. We cannot allow the trial lawyers to control this debate. We cannot allow the trial lawyers to say: We are not even going to allow for debate of this bill on the floor of the Senate. That is what is happening. This bill isn't even going to be allowed to have an up-or- down vote. Some people say: Let's have insurance reform. Let's bring it all on. Let's have those amendments and let's debate it. But the other side of the aisle is not even allowing us to debate this bill on the floor of the Senate. This crisis is not going away; it is getting worse in America. We must act as a responsible body. It is unfortunate that the greatest deliberative body supposedly in the history of the world can't even deliberate on this bill. It is time to bring real medical liability reform to the floor of the Senate and debate it. Let's let the American people see what the medical liability reform debate is all about. Let's go forward so that we can save our doctors, nurses, nurse midwives, and other health care providers, so that when patients need care, they get that care. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, the American taxpayers are fed up. They are tired of the pork projects and the billions of dollars being spent on unaccountable, unnecessary, and wasteful Federal spending. Whether spending is a result of earmarks, or the often unsupervised process of Federal agencies awarding grants, spending is out of control. Americans work hard every day, and they struggle to meet the heavy tax burden that Washington imposes on them. Despite their struggle and sacrifice, Washington has failed to ensure that Americans' tax dollars are being spent wisely. The American public believes, and they are right, that Congress has lost sight of the fact that every dollar we spend here in Washington belongs to them. These are dollars that could have been spent by the people who earned them to care for their own families. The American taxpayers have had enough. They are frustrated and disgusted. And I join them in their frustration and disgust. Congress has not done a very good job of oversight. It is time for Congress to empower the American people so that government is more accountable to them. That is why I am introducing new legislation--the Website for American Taxpayers to Check and Help Deter Out-of-control Government Spending--or the WATCHDOG Act. This bill will give our constituents the tools they need to become citizen watchdogs. Americans will be able to see for themselves how their tax dollars are being spent. This bill will greatly improve transparency and help eliminate wasteful, fraudulent, duplicative, and unnecessary spending. It will give the American people the tools to monitor how Congress uses the earmarks process and how the bureaucrats, who spend billions of dollars a year in unsupervised grants, spend their tax dollars. Americans are aggravated because too often when they learn about wasteful spending it is too late for them to do anything about it. They learn about spending by reading their morning papers after the legislation has been signed into law or the grant money has been awarded. Sometimes that is how members of Congress learn about them as well. It's time to remove the cloak of secrecy that surrounds the earmarking and grantmaking processes. We need to shine a very bright light on how spending decisions are made. In this case, that bright light will be a publicly searchable online database that provides information on every organization receiving Federal funds. The Office of Management and Budget would be required to make all Federal grant and loan recipient data available to the public. The data must include information on Federal grant awards, including an itemized breakdown by agency and program. The database must also list all subgrantees of an organization that receives Federal funds. This bill also reforms and streamlines the grant process by requiring organizations that apply for Federal funding to use a single source application number, which they would use for requesting funding from any Federal agency. Those projects that are using Federal funds efficiently and with positive results will become obvious, and those programs that are duplicative, fail to show results, squander their funding, or act fraudulently will also become obvious. Here in Washington we have done a dismal job when it comes to cutting out unnecessary spending. By shining a light on this process, the American public will have a chance to help us eliminate billions of dollars in wasteful Federal funding. We owe it to the taxpayers and to future generations to clean up our act. This legislation gives taxpayers an important tool to hold Congress' feet to the fire.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, the American taxpayers are fed up. They are tired of the pork projects and the billions of dollars being spent on unaccountable, unnecessary, and wasteful Federal spending. Whether spending is a result of earmarks, or the often unsupervised process of Federal agencies awarding grants, spending is out of control. Americans work hard every day, and they struggle to meet the heavy tax burden that Washington imposes on them. Despite their struggle and sacrifice, Washington has failed to ensure that Americans' tax dollars are being spent wisely. The American public believes, and they are right, that Congress has lost sight of the fact that every dollar we spend here in Washington belongs to them. These are dollars that could have been spent by the people who earned them to care for their own families. The American taxpayers have had enough. They are frustrated and disgusted. And I join them in their frustration and disgust. Congress has not done a very good job of oversight. It is time for Congress to empower the American people so that government is more accountable to them. That is why I am introducing new legislation--the Website for American Taxpayers to Check and Help Deter Out-of-control Government Spending--or the WATCHDOG Act. This bill will give our constituents the tools they need to become citizen watchdogs. Americans will be able to see for themselves how their tax dollars are being spent. This bill will greatly improve transparency and help eliminate wasteful, fraudulent, duplicative, and unnecessary spending. It will give the American people the tools to monitor how Congress uses the earmarks process and how the bureaucrats, who spend billions of dollars a year in unsupervised grants, spend their tax dollars. Americans are aggravated because too often when they learn about wasteful spending it is too late for them to do anything about it. They learn about spending by reading their morning papers after the legislation has been signed into law or the grant money has been awarded. Sometimes that is how members of Congress learn about them as well. It's time to remove the cloak of secrecy that surrounds the earmarking and grantmaking processes. We need to shine a very bright light on how spending decisions are made. In this case, that bright light will be a publicly searchable online database that provides information on every organization receiving Federal funds. The Office of Management and Budget would be required to make all Federal grant and loan recipient data available to the public. The data must include information on Federal grant awards, including an itemized breakdown by agency and program. The database must also list all subgrantees of an organization that receives Federal funds. This bill also reforms and streamlines the grant process by requiring organizations that apply for Federal funding to use a single source application number, which they would use for requesting funding from any Federal agency. Those projects that are using Federal funds efficiently and with positive results will become obvious, and those programs that are duplicative, fail to show results, squander their funding, or act fraudulently will also become obvious. Here in Washington we have done a dismal job when it comes to cutting out unnecessary spending. By shining a light on this process, the American public will have a chance to help us eliminate billions of dollars in wasteful Federal funding. We owe it to the taxpayers and to future generations to clean up our act. This legislation gives taxpayers an important tool to hold Congress' feet to the fire.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I would like to speak in morning business and ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, yesterday, I introduced the Medical Care Access Protection Act to address our Nation's medical liability crisis. High medical liability insurance premiums are threatening the stability of our Nation's health care delivery system. These rates are forcing many doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers to move out of high-liability States, limit the scope of their practices, and even close their doors permanently. The crisis is affecting more and more patients and is threatening access to reliable quality health care services in many States across our country. Because of unaffordable medical liability insurance premiums, it is now common for obstetricians to no longer deliver babies, and for other specialists to no longer provide emergency calls or provide certain high-risk procedures. Ask yourself this question: What if you were in need of an emergency procedure? What if you were the woman who had a high-risk pregnancy and could not find a specialist to provide you with the care you needed? The medical liability crisis is threatening access to reliable quality health care services this is happening to patients all over America. Additionally, some emergency departments have been forced to temporarily shut down in recent years. In my home State of Nevada, our level I trauma center closed for 10 days in 2002. This closure left every patient within a 10,000 square mile area unserved by a level I trauma center. Jim Lawson, unfortunately, was one of those in need of the trauma unit at that time. Jim lived in Las Vegas, and was just one 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 University Medical Center's level I trauma center, but it was closed. Instead, Jim was taken to another emergency room, where he was to be 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 I trauma center closed? A simple fact: Medical liability premiums could not be afforded by the doctors, and there were not enough doctors to provide care. The State had to actually step in and take over the liability to reopen the trauma center. More than 35 percent of neurosurgeons have altered their emergency or trauma call coverage because of the medical liability crisis. This means that patients with head injuries or in need of neurosurgical services must be transferred to other facilities, delaying much needed care. An example of this problem was brought to my attention by Dr. Alamo of Henderson, Nevada. Dr. 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 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 to California by helicopter to receive the medical care she needed. These kinds of situations should not happen and should not be forced to happen because of the medical liability crisis we have in America today. Stories such as these are becoming all too common across our country. I recently heard of seven patients who died in Chester County, Pennsylvania, because they did not have access to neurosurgical care. These patients were transported to neighboring counties instead of being treated locally where there was no available neurosurgeon. Some of these patients died during transport, and others died while on the operating table. This is unacceptable. Women's health care is also in serious jeopardy. In Pennsylvania, the legal climate caused nine maternity wards to close over the past several years. And hundreds of OB/GYNs have left the State, retired, or limited their services. This story is being repeated all over America. The bottom line is that patients cannot get the health care they need when they need it most. By definition, I believe this is a medical crisis. This crisis is affecting more and more patients, and it is threatening access to care. To address the growing medical liability crisis in my State of Nevada, legislation was enacted that includes a cap on noneconomic damages and a cap on total damages for trauma care. In order to control health care costs and make health care more readily available, we must extend similar protections to other States. Our entire Nation needs serious medical liability reform now. Without Federal legislation, the exodus of these providers from the practice of medicine will continue, and patients will find it increasingly difficult to obtain needed care. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue; this is a patient issue. Simply put, patients cannot find access to care when they need it most in many areas. I introduced the Medical Care Access Protection Act to address the national crisis our doctors, hospitals, and those needing health care face today. My legislation is a comprehensive medical liability reform measure. The bill sets reasonable limits on noneconomic damages, while also providing for unlimited economic damages. The Medical Care Access Protection Act is a responsible reform measure that includes joint liability and collateral source improvements, and limits on attorney fees according to a sliding award 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 used to further abuse the system and further drive up medical costs. My bill also preserves States' rights by keeping the State medical liability statutes in place and by allowing States that enact medical liability reform bills in the future to supersede the Federal limits on damages. The Medical Care Access Protection Act uses the Texas style of caps on noneconomic damages which has brought real reform to the Texas liability system. This provides a cap of $250,000 for a judgment against a physician or a health care professional. In addition, the patient can be awarded up to $250,000 for a judgment against one health care institution. Judgments against two or more health care institutions cannot exceed $500,000, with each institution liable for not more than $250,000. Thus the noneconomic damages can total $750,000. The Texas style of caps on noneconomic damages is working. Patients are experiencing better access to health care, and Texas communities are finding it easier to recruit new doctors. At least 3,000 new doctors have established practices in Texas since the law's passage in 2003. Many of these doctors are serving in medically underserved areas of the State. Some counties, such as Cameron County along the Texas- Mexico border, are experiencing unprecedented success in physician recruitment--the opposite of what is happening in Pennsylvania. The number of medical specialists in Texas is also growing. Patients have access to more specialists and emergency room physicians. Since 2003, Texas has gained a total of 93 orthopedic surgeons and more than 80 OB/GYNs. Insurance costs have decreased significantly for doctors and hospitals. Medical liability rates, which had been out of control, have been going down. Physicians' insurance rates had risen by as much as 54 percent in the last few years. But with medical liability reform, physicians in Texas have seen their rates drop by a significant amount. More than 4,000 Texas physicians have opened new professional liability policies. Some of these doctors are new to the State. The medical liability structure in Texas is working. These types of outcomes should be shared by every State and ultimately every patient in America. The American Medical Association has removed Texas from its list of States experiencing a medical liability crisis. It should be our goal that every State in America be removed from the crisis list. Let's put an end to this crisis once and for all. Let's enact meaningful medical liability reform today. The Medical Care Access Protection Act is not a battle of right versus left; it is a battle of right versus wrong. This bill is the right prescription for patients. We need to secure patient access to quality health care services when they need it most. Let's make sure expectant mothers have access to OB/GYNs and trauma care victims have access to necessary services in their hour of most critical need. And let's make sure we continue to provide patients with the opportunity to receive affordable, accessible, and available health care for years to come. The Medical Care Access Protection Act is substantially different from legislation we have brought to the Senate floor in previous years, and it warrants serious consideration. We are going to have a vote on whether to even debate this bill next week. The American people need to contact their Senators. They need to say: Let's bring the bill to the floor and have an open and honest debate on this measure. Are you going to stand with the trial lawyers, or are you going to stand with the patients in America? That is the question we have to ask ourselves. It is time for us to stand with the patients. If the people of America want change, they will have to contact their legislators. This has to be a grassroots effort that rises up from across the country. I believe the time for action is now. As we consider this bill, I hope Senators will put aside partisan differences and political alliances and will put the patients of America first. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, may I ask the chairman of the committee, is this an increase in funding in this bill?

Mr. ENSIGN. I have no objection.

Mr. ENSIGN. So this is no net increase in spending in the bill?

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I pay tribute to a great Nevadan whose passing has saddened me and countless others in my State. I hope my colleagues will join me in offering their thoughts and prayers to the family of J.A. Tiberti. Mr. Tiberti died yesterday. He had called Nevada home since 1941. I'm very proud to say J.A. Tiberti was my friend. But he was more than that. J.A. Tiberti was nothing less than a deep personal inspiration. He embodied a bold, energetic, upbeat entrepreneurial spirit. The type of spirit that built Nevada, the West, and this country. The type of spirit that inspires and energizes brave thinkers and dreamers throughout America, and has done so since our Nation was formed. Mr. Tiberti leaves behind not only one of the most proud and prominent families in Nevada but also a legacy of vision and dreams for his community that will last, literally, for generations. If you drive anywhere in southern Nevada today, you will see homes, businesses, office buildings, and resorts rising out of the desert and forming the fastest growing communities in America. These are all testaments to the allure of Nevada and the spirit of the people who call it home. And on many of those rising structures you will see the Tiberti name. It is a testament to a man who dedicated his life to helping build his community. Tiberti Construction is one of the most successful and thriving businesses in the country. At this moment, hundreds of students are pursuing higher education at the University of Nevada Las Vegas within walls and under roofs built by Tiberti Construction. The men and women of our military are training to defend our country at Nellis Air Force Base inside buildings erected by J.A. Tiberti's company. J.A. Tiberti's generosity and philanthropic efforts are well known and talked about by all who knew him, but never by Mr. Tiberti himself. His willingness to donate to causes close to his heart was matched by his reluctance to speak of them or try to gain publicity for himself. It is remarkable that a man of such success and generosity was also blessed with a humility that prevented him from boasting of his accomplishments and contributions. I will tell you, as a small example, that the alumni center and engineering complex at UNLV exist today because of J.A. Tiberti. His humble nature was inherited from his parents, hardworking immigrants from Italy who lived and worked in a coal mining camp. His father went off to work in the mines at 2 a.m., checking for dangerous gasses that could put the other workers' lives in danger. When J.A. Tiberti began having success in the construction business his values never left him. An interviewer once asked him how he had achieved success early on and, instead of citing business plans or wise investments, J.A. Tiberti said it was honesty and sincerity that laid the groundwork for his business. Two years ago, J.A. Tiberti was inducted into the Nevada Business Hall of Fame. He has served on too many planning commissions, advisory boards, finance committees, and professional societies to name here, and his commitment to community service was recognized in 1987 when he was named Most Distinguished Nevadan. Today the Tiberti family is also grounded in those values, and their success reflects the hard work and generosity of their patriarch. J.A. Tiberti leaves behind six children, 21 grandchildren, and six great- grandchildren. I know they are proud to carry on the Tiberti name and, through our sadness over his passing, we Nevadans are proud that he chose our state to raise his family and to call home.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con Res. 349, just received from the House, and at the desk.

Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 3. I further ask unanimous consent that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, that there then be a period of morning business for up to 30 minutes with the majority in control of the first 15 minutes to be followed by 15 minutes under the control of the minority; provided further that the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 4939. I further ask unanimous consent that there be 1 hour of debate with Senator Coburn controlling 30 minutes, Senator Feinstein 15 minutes, and Senator Boxer 15 minutes, and that the vote occur in relation to Division XIX of the pending amendment with no amendment in order to the division prior to the vote.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding adjournment of the Senate, all time count against the limitation under rule XXII.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, today cloture was invoked on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. We have disposed of many amendments, but we still have some pending amendments remaining that will need to be disposed of. Tomorrow will be a busy day, and votes can be expected throughout the day as we attempt to finish action on this emergency supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, that any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 91 and that the Senate then proceed to its consideration.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to, the McCain amendments at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 408.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration of S. Res. 461, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Reserving the right to object, I support the Senator from New Jersey. I support the intent of his amendment and realize there is a severe emergency in Darfur about which many of us feel strongly, and we need to do something there. During consideration of this bill, we have been trying to hold the line on spending, to reprioritize. If there is something else the Senator can offer as an offset for this increase in spending, I would be more than happy to let the amendment be debated and voted on. But without an offset, I object.

Mr. ENSIGN. Objection.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.