John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation in the hopes that it will correct a grave injustice committed against the people of Iraq as well as the honest and law-abiding citizens of the world community. We now believe that Saddam Hussein, corrupt U.N. officials, and corrupt well-connected countries were the real benefactors of the Oil- for-Food Program. Their benefits came from illegal oil shipments, financial transactions, kickbacks, and surcharges and allowed Saddam Hussein to build up his armed forces and live in the lap of luxury. The evidence in this far-reaching scandal tells an unbelievable story. In January of this year, the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) released a list of 270 former government officials, businessmen, political parties, and foreign cronies of Hussein from more than 46 countries suspected of profiting from illegal oil sales that were part of the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Program. Our own U.S. General Accounting Office estimates that Saddam Hussein siphoned off $4.4 billion through oil sale surcharges. Saddam Hussein also demanded kickbacks on the humanitarian relief side from suppliers which amounted to 10-20 percent on many contracts. Saddam used this revenue to rebuild Iraq's military capabilities, to maintain lavish palaces, buy loyalty, oppress his people and financially support terrorism. And as Claude Hankes-Drielsma, an IGC consultant investigating the scandal testified, the secret payments ``provided Saddam Hussein and his corrupt regime with a convenient vehicle through which he bought support internationally by bribing political parties, companies and journalists . . . This secured the cooperation and support of countries that included members of the Security Council of the United Nations.'' The United Nations should be embarrassed. What resulted from the goodwill gesture was international scandal, corruption at the highest levels, and suffering Iraqi citizens. Not exactly a model U.N. program. Contrary to its protestations, the United Nations Secretariat had a critical role in the implementation and management of the program. It kept the contract records. It controlled the bank accounts and was the only entity allowed to release Saddam Hussein's oil earnings. And it arranged for the audits. As Secretary General Kofi Annan noted, ``under the program, the [U.N.] Secretary General was required to supervise the sale of Iraqi oil, and to monitor the spending of the proceeds on specific goods and services for the benefit of the Iraqi people.'' Well, he did a lousy job. Tasked by the international community to deny Saddam Hussein the ability to rebuild his military apparatus while providing humanitarian needs, the United Nations allowed the corrupt to become richer and innocent Iraqis to be oppressed. Today we have a chance to rectify that injustice. We must demand that the United Nations cooperate completely with efforts to extrapolate the truth from this scandal and punish the guilty. We know that the Volker panel does not have subpoena power. And we've now learned that officials acting on behalf of Benon Sevan, the Executive Director of the Oil-for-Food Program, who is personally implicated in the scandal, are asking contractors not to release documents relating to the program to congressional investigators without getting U.N. authorization. An April 2, 2004, U.N. letter to a Swiss firm Cotecna reminded the firm that according to its contract all documents: ``shall be property of the United Nations, shall be treated as confidential and shall be delivered only to United Nations authorized officials.'' Cotecna, was in charge of inspecting the humanitarian goods shipped to Iraq under Oil-for-Food. It had Kofi Annan's son Kojo on its payroll until the month it won its U.N. contract. And an April 14 letter reminded a Dutch company called Saybolt of its confidentiality agreements with the U.N., demanding ``that Saybolt address any further requests for documentation or information concerning these matters to us.'' Saybolt was in charge of making sure oil invoices matched shipments. The United Nations should be more interested in bringing the truth to light then trying to protect its tattered reputation and its corrupt officials. The legislation I am introducing today will hold the United Nations' feet to the fire on this scandal. It calls for transparency and accountability. Under this bill, the United Nations must allow GAO and law enforcement agencies access to its Oil-for-Food records. U.N. officials must waive their immunity for any crimes committed on United States soil and repay their ill-gotten gains. If not, 10 percent of our assessed U.N. regular budget contributions will be withheld the first year and 20 percent the second year. Granted, the withholding of $36 million in the first year is no where near the more than $1 billion that the United Nations skimmed off the top of Iraqi oil sales for administrative costs or the billions that were stolen from the Iraqi people through corruption and mismanagement. But the 10 percent withholding worked in the past when the 103rd Congress used it to compel the United Nations to create an inspector general. And I believe it can work again. But we have to make an important choice first. We can do nothing and allow the word ``humanitarianism'' to be the new code word for corruption scandal from here on out. Or we can stand up and make the United Nations rightfully accountable for the corruption that harmed innocent Iraqis. The answer is clear. We must act. The U.N. is broken. This scandal revealed that the U.N. Security Council is unable to do its job when some members are more interested in lining their pockets than preserving security. I contend that there was no way that the U.S. could get France and Russia to enforce Security Council resolutions on Iraq and go to war when so many of their politically connected individuals, companies, and institutions received Iraqi oil contracts. Victory brought their corruption to light. And I am deeply worried that the ability of the United Nations to convey ``legitimacy'' to the new Iraqi government and assist in postwar Iraq is hampered by its history of corruption and mismanagement in the Oil-for-Food program. The U.N. needs to come clean and start over. The first step toward doing that is to accept the terms and conditions of the Oil-for-Food Accountability Act.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation in the hopes that it will correct a grave injustice committed against the people of Iraq as well as the honest and law-abiding citizens of the world community. We now believe that Saddam Hussein, corrupt U.N. officials, and corrupt well-connected countries were the real benefactors of the Oil- for-Food Program. Their benefits came from illegal oil shipments, financial transactions, kickbacks, and surcharges and allowed Saddam Hussein to build up his armed forces and live in the lap of luxury. The evidence in this far-reaching scandal tells an unbelievable story. In January of this year, the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) released a list of 270 former government officials, businessmen, political parties, and foreign cronies of Hussein from more than 46 countries suspected of profiting from illegal oil sales that were part of the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Program. Our own U.S. General Accounting Office estimates that Saddam Hussein siphoned off $4.4 billion through oil sale surcharges. Saddam Hussein also demanded kickbacks on the humanitarian relief side from suppliers which amounted to 10-20 percent on many contracts. Saddam used this revenue to rebuild Iraq's military capabilities, to maintain lavish palaces, buy loyalty, oppress his people and financially support terrorism. And as Claude Hankes-Drielsma, an IGC consultant investigating the scandal testified, the secret payments ``provided Saddam Hussein and his corrupt regime with a convenient vehicle through which he bought support internationally by bribing political parties, companies and journalists . . . This secured the cooperation and support of countries that included members of the Security Council of the United Nations.'' The United Nations should be embarrassed. What resulted from the goodwill gesture was international scandal, corruption at the highest levels, and suffering Iraqi citizens. Not exactly a model U.N. program. Contrary to its protestations, the United Nations Secretariat had a critical role in the implementation and management of the program. It kept the contract records. It controlled the bank accounts and was the only entity allowed to release Saddam Hussein's oil earnings. And it arranged for the audits. As Secretary General Kofi Annan noted, ``under the program, the [U.N.] Secretary General was required to supervise the sale of Iraqi oil, and to monitor the spending of the proceeds on specific goods and services for the benefit of the Iraqi people.'' Well, he did a lousy job. Tasked by the international community to deny Saddam Hussein the ability to rebuild his military apparatus while providing humanitarian needs, the United Nations allowed the corrupt to become richer and innocent Iraqis to be oppressed. Today we have a chance to rectify that injustice. We must demand that the United Nations cooperate completely with efforts to extrapolate the truth from this scandal and punish the guilty. We know that the Volker panel does not have subpoena power. And we've now learned that officials acting on behalf of Benon Sevan, the Executive Director of the Oil-for-Food Program, who is personally implicated in the scandal, are asking contractors not to release documents relating to the program to congressional investigators without getting U.N. authorization. An April 2, 2004, U.N. letter to a Swiss firm Cotecna reminded the firm that according to its contract all documents: ``shall be property of the United Nations, shall be treated as confidential and shall be delivered only to United Nations authorized officials.'' Cotecna, was in charge of inspecting the humanitarian goods shipped to Iraq under Oil-for-Food. It had Kofi Annan's son Kojo on its payroll until the month it won its U.N. contract. And an April 14 letter reminded a Dutch company called Saybolt of its confidentiality agreements with the U.N., demanding ``that Saybolt address any further requests for documentation or information concerning these matters to us.'' Saybolt was in charge of making sure oil invoices matched shipments. The United Nations should be more interested in bringing the truth to light then trying to protect its tattered reputation and its corrupt officials. The legislation I am introducing today will hold the United Nations' feet to the fire on this scandal. It calls for transparency and accountability. Under this bill, the United Nations must allow GAO and law enforcement agencies access to its Oil-for-Food records. U.N. officials must waive their immunity for any crimes committed on United States soil and repay their ill-gotten gains. If not, 10 percent of our assessed U.N. regular budget contributions will be withheld the first year and 20 percent the second year. Granted, the withholding of $36 million in the first year is no where near the more than $1 billion that the United Nations skimmed off the top of Iraqi oil sales for administrative costs or the billions that were stolen from the Iraqi people through corruption and mismanagement. But the 10 percent withholding worked in the past when the 103rd Congress used it to compel the United Nations to create an inspector general. And I believe it can work again. But we have to make an important choice first. We can do nothing and allow the word ``humanitarianism'' to be the new code word for corruption scandal from here on out. Or we can stand up and make the United Nations rightfully accountable for the corruption that harmed innocent Iraqis. The answer is clear. We must act. The U.N. is broken. This scandal revealed that the U.N. Security Council is unable to do its job when some members are more interested in lining their pockets than preserving security. I contend that there was no way that the U.S. could get France and Russia to enforce Security Council resolutions on Iraq and go to war when so many of their politically connected individuals, companies, and institutions received Iraqi oil contracts. Victory brought their corruption to light. And I am deeply worried that the ability of the United Nations to convey ``legitimacy'' to the new Iraqi government and assist in postwar Iraq is hampered by its history of corruption and mismanagement in the Oil-for-Food program. The U.N. needs to come clean and start over. The first step toward doing that is to accept the terms and conditions of the Oil-for-Food Accountability Act.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise along with my colleagues, Senators landrieu, Lieberman, Inouye and Collins, in order to introduce S. 2352, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. As a veterinarian, I am well aware of the love that Americans have for their horses. Much of our Nation's early history and culture is associated with these animals. We think of George Washington's horses and the legend of Paul Revere's ride and the Pony Express. And more recently, we were reminded of how the Depression Era race between Seabiscuit and War Admiral raised the spirit of our Nation. While horses in the United States are not raised for food, last year alone, almost 50,000 horses were slaughtered in the United States for human consumption abroad. Pet horses, ex-racing horses, workhorses and even some federally protected wild horses are currently being slaughtered for human consumption in Europe and Asia. A series of recent polls show that Americans overwhelmingly support a ban on the slaughter of horses for human consumption. Often, owners who sell their horses at auction are unaware that their horses may well be on their way to one of the two remaining slaughterhouses in America where horses are killed for human consumption. These slaughterhouses are foreign owned and the product is shipped abroad as are the profits. States have tried to be proactive in preventing this form of slaughter in the United States. Several States have already enacted state laws prohibiting the slaughter of horses for human consumption. Several other States are currently considering similar legislation. However, due to the absence of a Federal law on this subject, the two existing foreign-owned slaughterhouses, which happen to be located in Texas--a State that has passed a law banning horse slaughter for human consumption--have still been able to operate. I know that some people have expressed concern about what will happen to horses if slaughter is banned. Many of these horses will be sold to a new owner, others may be kept longer, and still others will be humanely euthanized by a licensed veterinarian. Others will be cared for by the horse rescue community. The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act does allow fines collected under the Act to be distributed to qualified horse rescue groups caring for horses confiscated under the Act. Some people have questioned whether this law will result in the abuse and neglect of unwanted horses. Thankfully, statistics do not support this claim at all. Recently released figures show that the number of abuse cases dropped significantly in Illinois after the State's only horse slaughtering facility was destroyed in a fire in 2002. Also, since California passed a law banning the slaughter of horses for human consumption, there has been no discernible increase in cruelty and neglect cases in the State. Futhermore, it is currently illegal to ``turn out,'' neglect, or starve a horse, so this bill will not result in an increase in the number of orphaned horses in the United States. If a person attempts to turn his or her horses out, under current law, animal control agents will be able to enforce Federal humane laws. As I stated before, this bill seeks only to prohibit the slaughter of horses for human consumption. If a person wishes to put an animal down, it costs an average of $50 to $150 to have the horse humanely euthanized and disposed of--a fraction of what it costs to keep a horse as a companion or a work animal. That cost is not too big a burden to bear when no other options are available. The time for a strong Federal law banning this practice is now. This bill does not target other forms of slaughter, rendering, or euthanasia but rather focuses solely on the slaughter of American horses for human consumption. The House version of this bill, H.R. 857, currently has two hundred cosponsors. Please join Senator Landrieu and me in cosponsoring the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise along with my colleagues, Senators landrieu, Lieberman, Inouye and Collins, in order to introduce S. 2352, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. As a veterinarian, I am well aware of the love that Americans have for their horses. Much of our Nation's early history and culture is associated with these animals. We think of George Washington's horses and the legend of Paul Revere's ride and the Pony Express. And more recently, we were reminded of how the Depression Era race between Seabiscuit and War Admiral raised the spirit of our Nation. While horses in the United States are not raised for food, last year alone, almost 50,000 horses were slaughtered in the United States for human consumption abroad. Pet horses, ex-racing horses, workhorses and even some federally protected wild horses are currently being slaughtered for human consumption in Europe and Asia. A series of recent polls show that Americans overwhelmingly support a ban on the slaughter of horses for human consumption. Often, owners who sell their horses at auction are unaware that their horses may well be on their way to one of the two remaining slaughterhouses in America where horses are killed for human consumption. These slaughterhouses are foreign owned and the product is shipped abroad as are the profits. States have tried to be proactive in preventing this form of slaughter in the United States. Several States have already enacted state laws prohibiting the slaughter of horses for human consumption. Several other States are currently considering similar legislation. However, due to the absence of a Federal law on this subject, the two existing foreign-owned slaughterhouses, which happen to be located in Texas--a State that has passed a law banning horse slaughter for human consumption--have still been able to operate. I know that some people have expressed concern about what will happen to horses if slaughter is banned. Many of these horses will be sold to a new owner, others may be kept longer, and still others will be humanely euthanized by a licensed veterinarian. Others will be cared for by the horse rescue community. The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act does allow fines collected under the Act to be distributed to qualified horse rescue groups caring for horses confiscated under the Act. Some people have questioned whether this law will result in the abuse and neglect of unwanted horses. Thankfully, statistics do not support this claim at all. Recently released figures show that the number of abuse cases dropped significantly in Illinois after the State's only horse slaughtering facility was destroyed in a fire in 2002. Also, since California passed a law banning the slaughter of horses for human consumption, there has been no discernible increase in cruelty and neglect cases in the State. Futhermore, it is currently illegal to ``turn out,'' neglect, or starve a horse, so this bill will not result in an increase in the number of orphaned horses in the United States. If a person attempts to turn his or her horses out, under current law, animal control agents will be able to enforce Federal humane laws. As I stated before, this bill seeks only to prohibit the slaughter of horses for human consumption. If a person wishes to put an animal down, it costs an average of $50 to $150 to have the horse humanely euthanized and disposed of--a fraction of what it costs to keep a horse as a companion or a work animal. That cost is not too big a burden to bear when no other options are available. The time for a strong Federal law banning this practice is now. This bill does not target other forms of slaughter, rendering, or euthanasia but rather focuses solely on the slaughter of American horses for human consumption. The House version of this bill, H.R. 857, currently has two hundred cosponsors. Please join Senator Landrieu and me in cosponsoring the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the HELP Committee for the work he has done to bring this legislation to the floor of the Senate, trying to get an up-or-down vote, or just trying to proceed to debate this bill. For those people around the country who do not understand the way the Senate works, we have to have 60 votes to proceed to the bill on reforming our medical liability system. We have to have 60 votes to go to the bill, to amend it, and then to vote it up or down. It is a shame the Democratic side of the aisle is not even allowing us to have an up- or-down vote on this incredibly important legislation. Today 19 States across the United States are in full-blown crisis, according to the American Medical Association, regarding medical liability. Only six States are stable because of the reforms they have in place. OB/GYNs, emergency room physicians, and trauma doctors are the hardest hit, but they are not the only ones. From 1982 to 1998, the average premium for OB/GYNs rose 167 percent. In 2002, the average premium for emergency room physicians rose by 56 percent. In Las Vegas, OB/GYNs have seen a 300- to 400-percent increase in their premiums as of late. Three years ago they paid around $40,000 a year; now they pay upwards of $200,000 a year. To help curb the cost, OB/GYNs are limiting the number of babies they deliver, and some of them are no longer delivering babies at all and are only practicing gynecology. In fact, many of them are leaving our State altogether. This crisis has now grown to affect our students in medical schools across the country. Nevada is really suffering because it is the fastest growing State in the country. Medical students are now avoiding high-risk specialties. Nevada's school of medicine had the lowest number of students entering obstetrics it has had since 1999. That number has decreased every year since 2000. Nationally, half of all medical students indicate the liability crisis is a factor in their choice of specialty. For osteopathic students, the numbers are even worse. Eighty-two percent say cost and availability of insurance will influence their specialty choice. Eighty-six percent say cost and availability of insurance will determine where in the country they practice. With doctors leaving practice and no more entering the field, patients are suffering and will suffer more in the future. Patients are what this debate is all about--not doctors or lawyers. Patients can't find access to care when they need it. For example, Nevada's only level I trauma center closed for 10 days in 2002. The center serves trauma victims over 10,000 square miles--in Nevada, parts of California, Utah, and Arizona. In 2002, this trauma center cared for 11,600 patients. Mainly, these patients suffer the most traumatic injuries such as severe car accidents, knife and gunshot wounds, and brain and spinal cord trauma. This closure cost Jim Lawson his life on July 4, 2002. We have a picture of Jim. 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 I trauma center, but it was closed. Instead, Jim was taken to another emergency room to be stabilized and 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? Simple fact: There were not enough doctors available to provide care. There were not enough doctors because of skyrocketing medical liability premiums. How do we know it was because of that reason? It is very simple. It reopened a week later when the State put the level I trauma center under its umbrella coverage where the maximum the State could be sued for is $50,000. The legislation we have before us caps non-economic damages at much more--$250,000--but allows recovery of economic damages to be unlimited. Remember, economic damages are for lost wages, medical bills, etc. We have cases in California, where a law is in place that is almost identical to the legislation we are talking about today, where patients have been awarded millions of dollars in compensation. It is the out- of-control jury awards across the country that are dramatically raising our premiums. I want to emphasize again, the level one trauma center in Las Vegas was reopened because the State of Nevada took it under its wing and said: We will protect any of the doctors who work there with a maximum liability coverage of $50,000 in damages. Opponents on the other side argue that injured patients won't get what they need financially if malpractice occurs as determined by a jury. Let's remember that patients can recover damages in three different ways under our bill, and in only one case, non-economic damages, are we placing a distinct limit. Economic damages would be unlimited and punitive damages are available in the cases of gross malpractice. This bill would create strong medical liability reform where patients can actually get the kind of compensation they need and they can get it sooner because they can navigate through the courts much faster. Undoubtedly, the courts will work a lot more quickly because there won't be so many frivolous cases clogging up the civil justice system. The cases we hear about, whether it is in the trauma centers or because there are no OB/GYNs available, are tragic. It is the patients who are being hurt every day. The other side says they are trying to stand up for the little guy--the little guy who gets hurt because of medical malpractice. And we definitely should stand up for those people because there are some very tragic cases. Without a doubt they deserve just compensation. Unfortunately, our system has swung out of balance. It is too easy to sue these days because the threat of a lawsuit and the cost of that lawsuit is so exorbitant that medical providers and their insurance companies often settle out of court. It is an absolute fact that providers and their insurers settle even in those cases they probably could win just because of the enormous expense and time. Adding to this broken cycle are these so-called ``professional witnesses,'' for lack of a better term. When I say professional witnesses, I mean physicians who no longer are practicing. Some have practiced a little bit, but they all of a sudden become experts in fields they never practiced in. Our legislation says if someone is testifying as an expert, they need to be an expert in the field they are testifying about. In other words, you don't want somebody who is a family doctor testifying in the case that involves a pediatric neurosurgeon. You want somebody who is a specialist in pediatric neurosurgery and knows about the ins and outs of that specific practice of medicine. Again, this legislation would allow those people who actually have had medical malpractice inflicted upon them to get through the court system faster, so maybe the ones who are truly hurt will get the compensation before they die. For many today, because the courts are so clogged up, it takes 6 to 10 years to get through the court system, and many of them die before they ever get compensation. Talk about a tragedy. So if people really want to stand up for the little guy and they want to say I want to fight for the little guy--if they want to fight for the person who actually gets hurt, let's pass legislation that allows the cases to get through the courts in a much more expeditious fashion. Another benefit of this bill is most, if not all, of the reforms it contains will help lower the cost of health insurance in this country for everybody, so hopefully we will have more people with health insurance. If the costs are lower, more people can afford it, and we will have fewer uninsured in this country. How many more doctors do we have to lose in Nevada and other States? Do we really want people who are not as qualified to go into some of these specialties? Do we want to start scraping the bottom of the barrel, or do we want the best and the brightest to go into these specialty fields? They always have in the past. Now they look out there and say, you know what, I am not going to be able to afford to practice. Why would the best and the brightest go into it when they say, I am going to go to 4 years undergraduate, 4 years medical school, and then I am going to do anywhere from 3 to 8 years, depending on the postgraduate training that is required in the specialty field, before I start making decent money. What people don't realize is even after these students graduate from medical school, they might make $30,000 to $40,000 doing ``slave labor,'' working 100 hours a week, while they are learning their particular field of study. We want the best people who are willing to sacrifice all of those years and all of those hours of hard work to be able to go into those fields. At the end, yes, they should be rewarded economically, just as anyone who works hard toward entering a specific field of work. But many of them will not do it for the simple fact they are not going to be able to afford the medical liability premiums. That is why it is so critical we pass medical liability reform. Today, we have before us a bill we have limited to provide relief to two specialties. It only covers OB/GYNs and professionals involved in the practice of emergency medicine and/or trauma medicine. We have limited it to highlight two of the most high-risk and the most severely affected areas in our health care system today. If you don't like portions of the bill and want to change it, fine. Let's have a healthy debate and amend the bill. Let's take amendments one at a time and amend the bill and then come out with a product that will actually fix the problems we have in this country. Right now the other side, the Democratic side of the aisle--it almost boggles my mind some of the points they argue against this bill--but they won't even let us have the bill brought to the floor where it can be amended. They won't let us have a fair debate where we can amend this bill. Sadly, they are obstructionists on so many pieces of legislation this year. But at least on the other pieces of legislation that they are obstructing they are not costing lives. On this legislation, they are costing lives. Unfortunately, more and more lives will be lost in the future. When there are not enough doctors to treat patients, it costs lives. The providers covered in this bill--OBGYNs, ER and trauma doctors--if they are not available to care for patients, people are going to die. People are going to end up in a situation like Jim Lawson's who, as we showed earlier, needed the kind of specialty care only a trauma center can provide. Right now, the doctors are not there to be able to give the patients the kind of care they need. We have to ask ourselves, what if it were one of our loved ones--not ourselves, but one of our loved ones? For instance, down in Florida, Dr. Frank Schwerin's son was injured. He is an internist. His son is a 4-year-old named Craig. Craig struck his head on the side of a swimming pool. Within minutes, he became lethargic and began to vomit. He was rushed to North Collier emergency room. The ER physician paged the neurosurgeon on call. Unfortunately, neurosurgeons in Collier County were not able to treat pediatric patients because they were too high risk. The nearest pediatric neurosurgeon was 150 miles away. In neurological trauma, every minute counts. After an hour or so of receiving what care he could, Craig was eventually stabilized. But not every child is that lucky. No parent should have to go through that wondering, does my child have the best care they can get, simply because the specialist left their area because the medical liability premiums were too expensive. I cannot tell you how many doctors who are in this situation. By the way, it is not only doctors. We are also talking nurse-midwives, EMTs, emergency and fire personnel, you name it. Throughout the health care provider system, people are affected by the out-of-control medical liability costs. But the physicians I have talked to, anecdotally, in story after story, say people were sued for the first time in their life in a case they may have had very little to do with. They walked in, gave only a consultation to another physician who was the primary doctor on the case, and then they are sued because malpractice was committed somewhere down the line by someone else on the case. Even though it had nothing to do with them, they now have to spend literally thousands of dollars defending themselves. The system is broken. It is out of control. Our system of justice swings like a pendulum. Right now, it has swung too far in one way--in the trial lawyer's favor. We have to bring it back in favor of the patients. The patients need to come first. That is what we are talking about today in this legislation--putting patients first instead of trial lawyers. Mr. President, I will conclude with this. I want to talk about the States that have enacted reforms versus the States that have not. I wish to give a couple of examples to put this in dollar terms so people can get their arms around it. This chart explains it very clearly. First of all, this is an example of internal medicine, general surgery, and OB/GYN. I will focus on the OB/GYNs to keep it simple because they are affected directly by this legislation. L.A., Denver, New York, Las Vegas, Chicago, and Miami are listed on this chart. The population shares are relatively similar. This shows the medical liability premiums in the various cities. This is a 2002 survey. Mind you, the cities with the problems are in much worse shape in 2004 than they were in 2002. An OB/GYN pays about $55,000 a year in L.A., and around $31,000 a year in Denver. California and Colorado are two States that have had good medical liability reforms passed at the State level, and these reforms have been in place for several years. If we go to New York, Las Vegas, Chicago, or Miami--take your pick--none of these States have good medical liability reform passed. In New York, they are paying $90,000; $108,000 in Las Vegas. That number is way low. At a minimum it is $140,000. Chicago, $102,000, and Miami is over $200,000 a year. That is why doctors are leaving their practices. One can say doctors make so much money that they can afford this. The average OB/GYN in Las Vegas makes around $200,000 a year. When $108,000 is going for medical liability coverage, you can see there is not very much left for the provider. You raise this up to $140,000, $150,000, $160,000, as many are now experiencing in my state, and there is not a lot of room left. I would also mention that with the way these doctors are getting paid at fixed rates, through managed care, Medicaid, and the like, there is not a lot of room left to afford rising premium rates. The fact is they are leaving the practice or they are limiting the amount of babies they deliver simply because they cannot afford to deliver babies. In the fastest growing cities and metro areas, that is unacceptable. This chart shows California versus U.S. premiums from 1976 to 2000. California has the model legislation we all look at. These are the premiums. This is California, the blue line, which is very stable. There has been an increase of about 167 percent over that time, a little more than inflation, but pretty close. Look at it for the rest of the country: 505 percent. Is medical liability reform working in California? I think the answer is pretty obvious that it is. We need a national solution. We need to say to the trial lawyers: Listen, we respect the fact you went to law school and you want to make a lot of money, but I think the system has been abused enough. It is time to put the patients first. Let's vote for cloture today. Let's get the 60 votes needed to at least go to debate on the bill. And if my colleagues do not like the provisions of the bill, let's amend it. Let's have up-or-down votes on amendments. Let's get to final passage where we can actually correct what is wrong with the health care system in the United States by eliminating abusive lawsuits, outrageous and unwarranted jury awards, and out-of-control medical liability premiums. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, our worse fears about FASB's seemingly predetermined crusade against stock options have unfortunately proven true. As expected, FASB has released a proposed expensing rule for stock options that is a lose-lose for individual investors and the American economy. Trial lawyers are gearing up for the biggest windfall of the 21st Century. They will be the only winners in this misguided action. FASB's proposed rule would allow companies to either use Black Scholes or a Binomial method to expense options. Both are flawed models and will yield very different and certainly inaccurate results. There is no question that market capital will be destroyed when these flawed numbers hit financial statements. Because companies have to choose the method they use to expense, and the inputs that feed into that flawed model, they will most certainly be barraged by class action lawsuits from greedy trial lawyers who will exploit the difficult decisions that FASB is going to force companies to make. Ironically, despite FASB's stated goal of improving information for investors, individual investors will now have absolutely no ability to make meaningful comparisons between companies. Different companies using different flawed valuation models will confuse and mislead the very people FASB purports to help. Our technology sector is on the cusp of recovery. We cannot afford to let bad accounting destroy jobs and cripple our global competitiveness. There are bigger picture issues here that FASB is neither tasked with examining, nor equipped to look at. That is the responsibility of the Congress and Administration. This move represents a tremendous threat to our global competitiveness. Communist China has, as a part of their 5 year plan, the use of stock options. They are setting out to duplicate the success of our very own Silicon Valley and stock options are at the very heart of the Chinese government plan. This is not about executive compensation. That is a separate and distinct issue. WorldCom and Enron had nothing to do with stock options. In fact, the Enzi-Baker bill says go ahead and expense for the top 5 executives. This is about small businesses and rank and file workers and preserving their ability to use this powerful tool for innovation and growth. This is about preserving broad-based employee stock ownership plans. Make no mistake about it. If FASB's rule goes into effect, rank and file workers are the ones that will suffer. We need to support policies that create jobs and wealth for Americans, not destroy them.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, the theme we are talking about this morning is obstructionism. We have heard about judges. Later on we are going to hear about the Democrats obstructing legislation that would create jobs in the United States. It is called the FSC/ETI bill. It really is a jobs bill. This is legislation that will actually bring hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs back home to the United States. Democrats have been blocking, as far as jobs are concerned, asbestos reform, bankruptcy reform, class action litigation reform--all of those items make American companies less competitive and make it tougher to have new job growth in the United States. Outsourcing is a big issue. As we hear more and more about this issue, we have to understand some of the reasons surrounding it. Right now the other side of the aisle is blocking a lot of the legislation that would allow companies to bring new jobs to this country to make our country more competitive. What I want to talk about this morning very briefly is the answer to what has caused a severe access to care crisis in many States, and that is the issue of the medical liability reform. My home State, the State of Nevada, is one of those 19 States that are truly in crisis. In fact, only five States across the United States are showing no signs of a crisis. Unfortunately, the rest of the states are all headed in Nevada's direction, and it is only going to continue to get worse unless we fix the problem right here in Washington, DC. This is a national problem and it requires an immediate national solution. One of the main reasons we need a national solution is because the Federal Government now pays 60 percent--60, 6-0 percent--of all the medical bills in the United States with regard to Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration. There is a huge amount of money the Federal Government pays in taxpayer dollars that goes toward paying medical bills in this country. For this and many other reasons this is a national problem that requires a national solution. We are losing doctors and other medical professionals at an alarming rate all over America. They are not going into the specialty and high-risk fields, especially in the numbers that we need in this country. There used to be a huge demand for many of these residencies. Now, some of our schools cannot even fill their residency programs. Unbelievably, often times they are not even getting any applications for these residencies. A few weeks ago I heard about the problems in Utah. There are tremendous medical facilities there. They are having problems getting doctors to go into some of the fields we want our best and our brightest to go into--those fields that require the most technically brilliant people--because of the fear that when they get out of medical school they will not be able to afford to practice because the medical liability premiums are too high. Why are the medical liability premiums too high? Well, it is pretty simple. It is because we have an overly-litigious society where unscrupulous trial lawyers basically say bring your Rolodex and we will find out who we can sue. More and more, this practice has spread into the medical profession where hard-working and honest professionals are being subjected to frivolous lawsuits. I am a veterinarian, and I know medicine is not an exact science. Mistakes are made. If there is medical malpractice, the patient deserves to get compensated, no questions asked, and our civil justice system has the ability to do that. But because the courts are so filled up with frivolous lawsuits these days, and some of the jury awards are so incredibly high, it motivates people to basically say let's go hit the lawsuit lottery because the system is broken. It is a situation where because of the backlog, the people who are really injured die before they ever get compensation. It can take 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years in the courts before their case actually has a final resolution, and that is unacceptable for those patients who are injured. That is one of the major reasons we need to have medical liability reform. Unfortunately, the other side continues to obstruct our efforts in this area. If opponents want to debate differences, if they want to amend the bill, fine, but they will not even let us go to a vote on a bill. In fact, they keep obstructing us even moving to debate a bill. They are filibustering, just as they are doing on judges and many other things. It is a shame because it is a crisis. It is a crisis with OB/GYNs-- arguably the most dire of circumstances with regard to access to care-- but it is also a crisis with trauma doctors, neurosurgeons, and even with general surgeons. Some of the best people who practice medicine in my State are either leaving practice or now, unfortunately, not going into those high-risk specialties. We need to enact reform to protect every American's access to quality care, and to keep the best and the brightest practicing and entering into the medical profession. In order to so, this obstructionism by our opponents must stop, and it must stop right now. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, my colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, and I will take a couple of minutes and exercise our privileges as Senators to brag a little bit about our State and the recent accomplishments of the University of Nevada basketball team and their rise to the Sweet 16. The Nevada Wolf Pack brought a lot of pride to our State. It is not a school known for basketball. Certainly, they had more football success in the years past. However, this year they surprised many in the Nation. It was obviously a heart-breaking loss to Georgia Tech last week. But Coach Trent Johnson, the whole Wolf Pack team and all the people surrounded with the program deserve a lot of credit for the season they put together. We expect big things from them in the future. For a school such as the University of Nevada, a school that does not have the reputation of the University of Connecticut or Duke, it is more difficult to get the kind of players to go up to Reno to play basketball. They have players from Virginia City, Elko, and some of the other small towns around Nevada. Coach Johnson crafted a team providing a good lesson for all of us to learn. If you can work together as a team, you can achieve true greatness. That is what his team did this year. Earlier in the year they beat the University of Kansas, beat them very soundly. Then through the March Madness, they made it all the way through the Sweet 16. It was funny to listen to the various announcers talk about our team and trash them, not even understanding how to pronounce ``Nevada.'' We do not use their pronunciation. It was funny to listen to them saying they did not have a chance; they did not know how to play basketball. Certainly the coach from the University of Nevada and the rest of the players proved them wrong. I rise today to congratulate them on a great season and look forward to their success. I also wish the Lady Rebels from the University of Nevada Las Vegas success tonight. They are in the WNIT championship. We have a lot to be proud of in our State. I join my colleague, Senator Harry Reid, in congratulating especially the Nevada Wolf Pack for what they have achieved. Hopefully, we will be able to talk about the championship the Lady Rebels will achieve tonight.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I will talk a little about jobs this morning. How much time remains on the Republican side?

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, is there a unanimous consent on how the time is divided on our side?

Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent I have 10 minutes of the remaining 21 minutes.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about jobs in the United States and something that is happening to our country. We have very complex international tax laws. To go into them, people's eyes would glaze over in complete boredom. Suffice it to say, because of the complexities, we have tried over the years to get U.S. companies on a more level playing field. In the past year, the international bodies that have jurisdiction have ruled against the United States versus the European Union regarding the way we treat U.S. companies doing business outside of the United States. Therefore, because we have not fixed our laws, they have decided to put a 5-percent tariff on many of our manufactured goods. Starting this month and for every month thereafter, that 5-percent tariff will be raised by 1 percent. As a matter of fact, by this time next year it will be up to 17 percent, which puts American manufacturers at a tremendous global disadvantage when compared to the European Union. If Members care about manufacturing jobs in this country, it is important this body bring back the JOBS bill that we had before us in the Senate last week that was filibustered and get it passed. The other side keeps talking about, manufacturing jobs and exporting jobs and outsourcing. If people really care about manufacturing jobs in this country, we will bring the JOBS bill back up to the floor and get it voted on and get it worked out between the House and the Senate and get it down to the President so he can sign it into law so we can start giving more help and more relief to manufacturing jobs in this country. Let me read a quote from the Washington Post of last week, quoting a Democrat tax aide saying: There's not a lot of incentive for us to figure out this [FSC-ETI] problem. That is the problem I just talked about with the international tax laws with our country and the tariffs. The Democrat aide went on to say that ``allowing the ETI problem to fester would yield increased sanctions that could benefit the Democrats in November.'' Well, if this is true, this is an appalling statement. This debate should be about policy, not petty politics. So let's look at what is inside of this JOBS bill. Not only would it end the $4 billion a year of tariffs against U.S. exports--and, by the way, those exports include grain, timber, paper, and manufactured goods. I realize, for some, this may be too politically tempting to let pass by--but this bill, by ending those tariffs, would put us on a more level playing field with European Union companies. The CBO says we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs in the United States since the year 2000. We have been losing gradually, since the late 1970s, manufacturing jobs in the United States. That is part of the entire global economy, but it is important that we at least allow U.S. jobs to be on a level playing field. The JOBS bill to which I referred, that was being filibustered, provides $75 billion of tax relief to our manufacturing sector to promote rehiring in U.S.-based manufacturing firms. This JOBS bill gives a 3-percentage-point tax rate cut on all income derived from manufacturing in the United States--it is not for manufacturing offshore--and we start those cuts in this year. This manufacturing rate cut applies to sole proprietors, partnerships, farmers, individuals, family businesses, multinational corporations, and even foreign companies that decide to set up operations within the United States and provide jobs in the United States. The bill also extends the R&D tax credit through the end of the year 2005. Now, the R&D tax credit is absolutely a jobs producer in the United States. It is for doing research and development, which betters our companies, which betters our economies, and creates high-paying jobs in the United States. The bill also extends, for 2 years, the tax provisions that expired in 2003 and in 2004, such as the work opportunity tax credit and the welfare-to-work tax credits--obviously, important pieces of legislation. The bill also provides incentives for newly constructed rural investment buildings, for starting or expanding a rural business in rural high-outmigration counties. The JOBS bill includes brownfields revitalization. Those are inner- city areas. Because of environmental concerns, frankly, many inner cities have dying areas because companies cannot go in. Because of the environmental liability of what somebody dumped there before, they cannot go in and create jobs in the inner cities. That is why it is important we get this part of the bill done. I also want to now talk about what I think is probably the most important part of the tax bill, and it is called the Invest in the USA Act, a bill that I have sponsored with Senator Barbara Boxer of California. This bill would allow U.S. companies that have invested abroad--they have a little over $600 billion invested that they have made money on and they have sitting in their bank accounts overseas. If they bring that money back to the United States, they will pay up to a 35-percent tax on it. There is not a lot of incentive for them to bring the money back. Other countries do not treat their companies that way, so they are able to actually bring the money back to their countries to create jobs in their countries. This past weekend, Senator Kerry talked about that issue. He now supports the idea of giving a tax break for the money coming back into this country. Last year, we had a vote on our bill, and all 50 Republican Senators and 25 Democratic Senators agreed it was time to bring this money home at a very low tax rate--a 5.25-percent tax rate. Senator Kerry has now embraced the idea of bringing it home, but he wants it taxed at 10 percent. The problem with taxing it at 10 percent is, because of the low cost of borrowing money today, it would actually be cheaper for the companies to borrow money in the United States than to pay the 10-percent tax and bring these funds home. So Senator Kerry recognizes it is a good thing to bring the money home. Unfortunately, the fix that he has will not bring the money home. The bill that Senator Boxer and I have proposed, that received 75 votes on the Senate floor, and now is part of the big JOBS tax bill, does bring the money home. Estimates are that it will bring at least $400 billion to the United States. That is a lot of money. As a matter of fact, that is more money than was raised in all of the initial public stock offerings from 1996 to 2002. That is a huge stimulus to our economy. That will produce a lot of good-paying U.S. jobs that we so desperately need right now. The economy is growing. GDP is up. There are increases in productivity. We are obviously doing well with home sales. Where we are not doing as well as we would like is in the area of new job creation. There are a lot of new self-employed jobs that are being created, but on the payroll survey many of those jobs are not being reported. This bill--for those who want to increase and extend the temporary unemployment insurance benefits, for those who want to do all kinds of Government programs--will make those types of provisions unnecessary. So if the Democrats in the Senate want to do something about jobs for this country, they will quit trying to put all kinds of extraneous provisions onto the bill, and we will get a jobs bill done this year. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN. My time has expired.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, is the Senator aware that within the JOBS package, not only does it stop the tariffs from going into effect and being raised by 1 percent a month, but within this JOBS package, the provision known as the Invest in the USA Act would bring over $300 billion back into the United States to be reinvested to create American jobs? One estimate from a very well-respected economist, Alan Sinai, has said 660,000 jobs would be created by that one provision alone. Is the Senator aware that by killing this bill, at least 660,000 jobs just in that one small provision will be killed along with it?

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ENSIGN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ENSIGN. If the Senator will further yield for another question, is the fear of the chairman, who has done such great work on this bill--it is my fear and I wonder if the chairman has the same fear-- that in the mix of an election cycle, some of these other issues that are being brought up are being brought up to confuse the issue, where they really do not like the underlying bill but they do not want to vote against the underlying bill because they know they are voting against jobs in America; that if they would vote for cloture, we could have a clean bill with only germane amendments and we could actually start creating jobs in America?

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I am going to speak on the JOBS bill and the importance of passing the JOBS bill. In particular, a portion of the JOBS bill called Invest In The USA Act, which I authored with Senator Boxer last year. I just want to take a couple of minutes to respond to the comments of the Senator from Washington about unemployment and extending the temporary extension of unemployment benefits. We have had this debate many times on the Senate floor and it has been shown that when the Democrats were in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, the extension of unemployment benefits was terminated when the unemployment rate in the country was 6.4 percent, almost a full percentage point higher than it is today. Historically, the termination criteria remains true. In the past, both President Clinton and the Democrat leader of the Senate, Tom Daschle, talked about a 5.6 percent unemployment rate and what a strong economy the US had at that time. Today, people's mindsets are different. People think that our current rate is actually a high unemployment rate. I believe we need to continue to look for things that will create jobs in America. We need to have job training, in fact we have passed a bill in the Senate that would improve job training. But we need to stop the filibuster of the Workforce Investment Act and allow it to move into conference, in order for the benefits to be seen. That bill will help train almost 1 million new workers and help them find new jobs in United States. The Workforce Investment Act is an important piece of legislation. There is a large number of jobs going overseas, and on the other side there are a lot of jobs that have moved to the United States. That is what makes up a global economy. It is a constantly changing global economy. Lower paying jobs usually move overseas, while higher paying jobs are created in this country. But there is a problem. In the last few years, as our economy has changed, not as many jobs have been created in this country as there could have been. We have a provision called the Invest in USA Act, which recognizes that over $500 billion has been accumulated in bank accounts for U.S. companies overseas because of the tax rates that would be charged on that money if it was brought back to the United States. U.S. companies pay up to a 35-percent corporate tax rate to bring that money home. This is a list of some of the various developed countries around the world. This is their normal corporate tax rate. The United States has the highest corporate tax rate when compared to countries in the world. This is just one fact that represents the stark contrast of what the United States does to its companies compared to what other countries do when companies invest in countries outside their own market. If a U.S. company goes to China and earns income over there, when it brings that money back, it has to pay up to a 35-percent tax rate on the money it brings returns to the U.S. If a company from France goes to China and makes money over there, and they bring the money back to France, it is zero percent. France charges them zero percent; Germany, zero percent; Canada, zero percent; Australia, zero percent; and, Great Britain, zero percent. These countries have recognized that it is a positive thing for the money to come back into their country. The Invest in USA Act, which I introduced with Senator Boxer last year, passed 75 to 25. Every Republican voted in favor of it and half of the Democrat Senators voted in favor of the Invest in USA Act. Unfortunately, it was dropped out in the tax debate in what is called a conference committee. It is now part of the bigger JOBS bill we have before us today. I might add--because of the tariffs the European Union will be putting on American companies--it is important to have this JOBS bill passed. I believe, of everything in this JOBS bill which is important, this is the most important piece. First, I talked about the $500 billion in the overseas markets. Of the $500 billion or so in American companies' bank accounts overseas, $400 billion conservatively--I think the lowest estimate of any of the studies I have seen is that $300 billion comes back--will come from the four corners of the world back into to the United States. To put this $400 billion number in perspective, from 1996-2002, it was clear that the United States was experiencing pretty good economic times. There are IPOs--initial public offerings--on the stock market. With IPOs, people raise money to be able to invest and pay down debt. There are all kinds of various uses for IPOs. During 1996-2002, all of the money raised with those IPOs does not equal this $400 billion number. With this one simple Act, Congress can bring back more money to the United States and create jobs than in all of the initial public offerings that were done for the stock market from 1996-2002. It is critically important we enact this legislation in order to bring jobs back to America. Some critics say it is unfair for the companies that are here in America which have paid their 35-percent corporate taxes. I am supportive of lowering the corporate tax rates, as often companies pass their taxes on to the consumer and are not directly responsible for them. We need to make American businesses more competitive. One of the ways we can do that is to lower the corporate tax rate. But given the fact that the rate is where it is, companies have no incentive to bring the money back here to the United States. For all of those companies that are paying that higher tax rate, if they want to share in a better economy, let us bring $400 billion back to the United States to invest, pay down the debt, invest in new capital improvements, do research and development in the United States, and create jobs right here in the United States. Various studies have been done regarding this important issue. Alan Sinai is probably one of the most respected economists in the United States. He certainly is not considered a conservative. Many would say he is maybe a little more liberal than conservative. I do not know that you can really paint him one way or the other, however he is well respected by both sides of the aisle. His estimate is that 660,000 jobs would be created by this one Act alone. The Joint Tax Committee says that over a 10-year period of time, if we enact the Invest in USA Act, it will help reduce the deficit by around $4 billion over 10 years. That in and of itself is a very small number compared to the over $2 trillion budget we have on an annual basis. But the Joint Tax Committee does not count any jobs that are produced. They do not count any of the taxes that are paid by those jobs that are being produced. Alan Sinai, on the other hand, looked at what kind of total impact this bill would have on the U.S. Government. In other words, would there be a loss of taxes or a gain of tax revenues because of the health in the economy. He has estimated that $75 billion in deficit reduction would be possible because of this one provision in the JOBS bill. The Invest in the USA provision will create 660,000 jobs, and I believe that is a conservative estimate. It will bring back $400 billion in cash for all kinds of positive things for U.S. companies and U.S. workers. It will help the taxpayer and help pay down the debt, and everybody around here talks about how important it is to ensure the deficit is reduced. Of all the good things in the JOBS bill that we are talking about today, for those who are truly interested in creating jobs in America, we need to pass this incredibly important piece of legislation. Of the few objections I have heard to this legislation, one is that it is not fair to American companies. I believe that issue has been addressed. The second is you should not implement a temporary fix, that companies and people are content to wait. Instead of paying 35-percent corporate tax rate, they are only charged 5\1/4\ percent. Critics say you should not do that just for 1 year because then companies will wait for the next tax holiday. I agree, doing temporary tax holidays is not necessarily a good idea, however, I want to use this as a model to show that if we encourage United States companies that have invested overseas to bring their money back--if the tax laws in America are changed--we can, indeed, create more jobs on American soil in this growing global economy. There is an clear imbalance. Most of which is not the fault of the companies. Lou Dobbs constantly talks about job outsourcing and paints United States companies as evil companies. The bottom line is the companies are doing what is in their best financial interest. It is the Congress that has set up these incentives to go overseas and to keep the money overseas. What the Invest In The USA Act does, is allow a temporary fix to bring the money back in the next 12 months, stimulate the economy, and then show the model of how a permanent fix can make America more competitive in the global marketplace. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I understand the Dorgan amendment is the next amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, the Dorgan amendment raises taxes by $2.2 billion to increase funding for the COPS Program by $1.1 billion. He says $2.2 billion is the tax increase that will be for millionaires, but we have said this time after time, you cannot specify to the Finance Committee what taxes will be raised. The bottom line is, the easiest taxes out there right now that are expiring at the end of this year are the $1,000 child tax credit, the marriage penalty reduction, and the expansion of the 10-percent tax bracket. These are middle-class people, middle to lower income people. We don't want to raise taxes on middle to lower income people. We encourage Members to vote no on this amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN. And there is a minute on each side.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2803

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, regular order.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I have just a couple thoughts to share tonight on the Senator's amendment and on Social Security in general. The Senator from Oklahoma mentioned what the Senator's amendment would actually do: raise taxes, supposedly to put into a fund to save Social Security. First of all, it directs the Finance Committee to raise taxes. You cannot tell the Finance Committee, in a budget resolution, what taxes to raise. It could easily raise taxes on the child tax credit. It could easily raise whatever taxes it chooses to raise. You cannot direct the Finance Committee on what taxes to raise. We all know that. Any of the amendments that have been put forward today that say, well, just raise the tax on millionaires, you have to be on the Finance Committee to be able to direct that. That may be your desire, but that is not the way the budget resolution works. You can just direct the amount of money for the Finance Committee to raise. And I think the Senator from New Jersey is aware of that. As far as putting it in a fund, this Senator has only been here for 3 years. I was in the House of Representatives for 4 years prior to this. The one thing I have learned around here, first of all, is that there is no Social Security trust fund; it is a bunch of IOUs. It is simply an accounting system that we have. Taxpayers, basically in the future, will pay taxes to fund this accounting gimmick that we know as a trust fund. In most companies, the way they set up trust funds, they actually take the money and invest it. That money accumulates. There are actually real assets. There are not real assets, other than the word of the United States, in the Social Security trust fund. That is really all we have.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, this morning I rise to speak about the national defense function of this budget resolution. The resolution provides $413.9 billion in discretionary spending for our national defense. This amount represents a increase of almost $20 billion, 5 percent above the 2004 level. As chairman of the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, I am keenly aware that today we are a nation at war. Almost 200,000 U.S. military service personnel are currently deployed around the world in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and other military operations in the ongoing global war on terrorism. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines remain deployed in Korea, the Balkans, at sea and elsewhere, protecting American interests and deterring aggression. There can be no disagreement on the magnificent manner which our Armed Forces have answered their nation's call. Their professionalism and performance have been brilliant, and their willingness to sacrifice for this country is inspiring. That is why I am so troubled today by the Democrats' response to President Bush's weekly radio address last Saturday. That response was delivered by Senator John Kerry, their party's presumptive Presidential nominee. We all know that each Senator has a right to state their opinion on defense issues. However, when a Senator, or in this case, a party's presumptive nominee, makes an argument built on a foundation of facts as distorted as Senator Kerry's was, then the argument becomes more than an honest disagreement. He quoted the Secretary of the Army as saying that U.S. forces were ``not prepared'' for the present conflict in Iraq. This is the exact quote: The Secretary of the Army admitted that the United States forces were ``not prepared'' for the present conflict. But yesterday at the Senate Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee hearing, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, General Casey, testified that comment ``was taken out of context.'' He stated ``we were very well prepared, all of the services.'' General Moseley, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, said, ``I would have to tell you that . . . all airmen, whether they were Navy, Marine, or Air Force, were exceptionally well prepared. . . . and I would take issue with anyone that criticized our magnificent airmen.'' General Huly, Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps, said, ``I believe we were very well prepared . . . I think that's evidenced by the fact that we exceeded our expectations, accomplished the mission in a shorter period of time, with far fewer losses than we even anticipated ourselves. Senator Kerry has woven a picture of incompetence and malfeasance by our military leaders and our President. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is amazing the different pictures painted by those who have been there, and those who have not. I personally visited Iraq last December. As a matter of fact, I was privileged to have been in the country the day the Third Infantry Division captured Saddam Hussein. I have to tell you what impressed me the most was watching our troops go above and beyond the call of duty; painting schools, rehabbing hospitals, and winning over the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, even in the Tikrit region where their safety was most at risk. Watching events in Iraq unfold underscores that America is blessed with more than her fair share of heroes. These men and women are doing what needs to be done in an extremely hostile environment. And they are depending on this Congress to pass a budget that gives them the resources to complete their mission and return home safely to their families. This budget ensures that the military has the resources it needs to remain properly prepared and adequately equipped. In his radio address, Senator Kerry also stated that: ``I will never send our troops into harm's way without enough firepower and support.'' Strong words, but words alone offer little in this context and in the overall context of our budget discussions. It is interesting to note that while Senator Kerry claims to be a devout supporter of our troops, he was one of only 12 Senators who voted ``no'' for an Iraqi supplemental that provided that very ``firepower'' and ``support'' he now claims is so necessary. The Iraqi supplemental was used to purchase the same body armor and ``up-armored Humvees'' Senator Kerry rails about as being insufficient. If we had allowed Senator Kerry to make the decision, our troops would indeed be ill prepared. Votes have consequences. By voting against the Iraqi supplemental Senator Kerry voted to undermine the troops in the field and that is not only inexcusable, it is reprehensible. I hope no Senator would make such an egregious mistake with respect to the current budget resolution. Therefore, I am calling upon Senator Kerry to retract his comments about our military being unprepared and to apologize to the men and women of our armed forces for using their sacrifices as political fodder. It is important to remember that in a democracy there will always be honest differences of opinion over the difficult decisions about the best way to fund, train, and equip American forces who are being sent into harms' way. I appreciate the opportunity to work with Members on both sides of the aisle to resolve these differences. On February 24, Senator Levin, ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, sent a letter to Chairman Nickles and Senator Conrad. In his letter he stated that ``no one can predict with precision what these fiscal year 2005 costs will be'' and recommended an increase in ``budget authority for the national defense function by $30 billion in fiscal year 2005.'' I agree with my distinguished colleague from Michigan when he said that this is ``the responsible thing to do for our troops and for budget accuracy.'' This budget takes Senator Levin's suggestions to heart and includes the supplemental resources necessary to provide for the 200,000 men and women in our military who are currently serving abroad. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to ensure that we adequately address the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, by passing a budget resolution that provides the resources that will sustain and improve our military as they fight for security of this great Nation. By fully supporting this budget, we will send a clear message of support to our troops, worldwide, and an important message to the world of America's complete commitment to freedom and security. I yield the floor.