energy efficiency to cover 15% of our energy needs by 2020 and save american families and businesses nearly $170 billion in electricity costs. of course the do-nothing caucus overlooks the cost of doing nothing. unchecked greenhouse gas pollution has begun to melt our glacieriers and warm our oceans leading to stronger, more frequents storms and rising sea levels. america's insurers are worried about the coasts, home to 5% of the population much we put a lot at risk if we follow the lead of the do-nothing caucus. mr. president, we heard the do-nothing caucus argue that strong environmental legislation would cost us money and cost us

jobs. it is as wrong now as it has always been before. in the 1990 debate on the acid rain program, manufacturers warn that the health benefits of the program were unclear and their adoption could deal -- quote -- "a crushing blow to u.s. business." when the acid rain program was enacted, it began to delive deliver $170 million annually. at a cost benefit raish yoaf more than 40 to one. industry and environmentalists alike now agree the program was a success. oops to that argument. in 1995 dupont warned the costs of phasing out ozone depleting chemicals would excee exceed $135 billion and -- quote -- "entire industries would fold." when the phaseout became law, compliance cost turned out to be less than 1% of the doomsday

projection. dupont made millions selling substitutes for the phased out chemicals and we began to shrink the hole in our ozone atmosphere. oops again. mr. president, we are at a crossroads. we can step toward the clean energy economy that beckens and show our capacity for leadership as we have done time and time again. or we can cling to status quo, heads firmly wedged in the sand and trade in our future for the well-being of big oil and the saudi royal family. right choice, i think, is clear, and i am confident we will make it. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff romana mcgee and marisa mallick and john heath be

granted floor privileges for the remainder of the session. the presiding officer: without t objection, so ordered without objection. mr. cornyn: i know a number of our colleagues came to the floor to talk about health care. it deserves our closest attention to something that will impact not just some of us, but literally all 300 million of us living here in the united states. but i want to focus my remarks in just the next few minutes on somewhat missing -- what is missing from the bills moving in the senate and the house of representatives. millions of americans are paying attention to what's in these business, and that's a good thing. everybody wants to see what congress is up to and everybody wants to understand what's in these bills and how it will impact their health care. as i talked to my constituents in texas, they tell me that congress may well make the

problem worse, and for good reason. families are worried that congress will increase the costs of their health care or force them into a government plan -- a pathway to a single-payer system. small business owners are concerned that higher taxes and new mandates will make it harder for them to weather the current recession. physicians and other health care providers are worried that we won't fix the problems with medicare and medicaid and we'll make their hassles even worse by creating new government programs on top of flawed and unsustainable current government programs. patients, that would be all of us, are worried about quality of care and whether the government will yo ultimately deny treatmet or delay treatment as in canada and the united kingdom and other places where the government has taken over health care.

and everybody, frankly, worried about spending more taxpayer dollars especially off of the spending spree that we saw earlier this year with the flawed stimulus package, which spent more than $1 trillion, including interest, of borrowed money. and which has failed so far to meet its intended goal of keeping unemployment down to 8% or less. i believe, mr. president, the people of this country will have greater confidence in congress if we focus on reforms that will actually lower the costs of health care and not reduce access or quality. and it will actually increase access an quality. one -- and quality. one proven way of doing that isn't even on the table and i think the american people would be justified in asking why. why isn't it on the table? why aren't we talking about

eliminating junk lawsuits that create the practice of defensive medicine, and do nothing but exacerbate an worsen high health care costs in this country. medical liability laws exist for a very good reason, to compensate victims of negligence and other medical errors. every victim of medical malpractice deserves access to the courts and for their case to be heard. but over the years our laws have somehow encouraged a wave of frivolous litigation that has done little but enrich trial lawyers and encouraged the practice of defensive medicine and increased the cost of health care for all of us. it's estimated that defensive medicine costs the american taxpayer more than $100 billion every year. $100 billion of an additional cost, and that's according to economist daniel b. kessler and mark b. mccelland.

trial lawyers have not been asked as others to lower health care costs much we know there's a lot of arm twisting going on in washington, hospitals, drugmakers, insurers, and others, have all been asked to pitch in and make a commitment to help. but so far there's one constituency that has not been asked for one dime, than is the trial lawyers. they have not been asked to step up and take one for the team. medical liability can -- reform can lower costs while expanding access to care and i would respectfully suggest to my colleagues this they just look to the experiment we have recently conducted in the state of texas. a successful experiment to increase access and lower costs. texas illustrates both the problem and the solution. in the early part of the decade texas was a trial lawyer's dream

and a doctor's night mairmt our state had become -- nightmare. our state had become a haven for medical malpractice lawsuits. medical malpractice insurance doubled and many just gave up and would no longer write medical malpractice insurance coverage at all. in fact, the number of physician liability insurers writing policies in texas fell from about 17 to four. many doctors left the state. or restricted the procedures they were willing to perform or simply retired early. this reduced access to health care as well as quality for millions of people across state of texas. our legislature and our governor at the time saw the problem and in a series of legislative reforms -- culminating in 2003,

they took action of they placed a $750,000 cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases. they require that punitive damages, that is damages awarded as punishment, not compensation, that they be approved by juries unanimously. they imposed a firmer statute of limitations, saying you needed to bring your claim within a specified time rather than sit on your rights and allow this claim to be stale and witnesses' memories dim. they set a higher standard for expert witnesses. the so-called out of town folks with a briefcase who are willing to testify for or against a particular claim, depending on their compensation. now, these and other reforms were designed to create an honest and predictable civil justice system where victims would receive just and timely compensation, bad actors would

be held to account and good doctors could afford to practice in our state. as i indicated, the results of this experiment have been dramatic. average premiums for medical malpractice fell by 27% on average. 27% lower premiums and in some cases by more than 50%. patients saw lower premiums for health care because doctors no longer had to pay skyrocketing premiums for their medical liability insurance. that translated into lower premiums for patients for their health care. more than 400,000 texans are now covered by health insurance because premiums have become more affordable. that's 400,000 more since these reforms took place. another amazing phenomenon here is that physicians literally flocked to our state. they literally returned to the lone star state in large numbers and we saw the overall growth

rate of 31% in the number of new physicians moving to our state including underserved areas like el paso, texas, where 76% increase in -- in that underserved area was seen as a result of this reform. we also saw a number of key medical specialists that had simply fled critical parts of our state, obstetricians, neurosurgeons, we saw them return and practice to provide good-quality health care. some had never had access to prenatal care or emergency care in their county now have greater access which means shorter drive times and wait times and healthier babies and happier families. the results in texas, i would submit, madam president, have been remarkable. what a great laboratory for us to learn from in enacting commonsense medical liability

reform as part of our overall health care debate. of course, texas is not unique in this experience. other states have reformed their laws as well to similar effect including california, colorado, florida, indiana, montana, and virginia. they see lower costs and great are access to health care. what -- greater access to health care. what works in state can work in washington, d.c., and around the whole country generally if we will simply have the encourage to embrace it. we must include medical liability reform in eliminating junk lawsuits and frivolous litigation as part of any comprehensive health care reform bill. specifically we should enact standards that caps noneconomic damages, establishes firmer statutes of limitations so that claims will be brought on a timely basis and not after memories failed and evidence is lost. we should implement several other reforms that have proved to be so successful in texas and

around other states. these reforms will lower the costs of health care for all americans. but don't take my word for it, mr. president. ask the congressional budget office. the nonpartisan congressional budget office has been under tremendous political pressure these days, including an unprecedented invitation by the president of the united stateunited statesfor the curree over to the white house and explain why they have come back with eye-popping sticker shock numbers as they have with some of the proposals that have been made. the congressional budget office looked at a cost savings if washington adopted a national reform along what we've done in texas. they estimated that the federal government alone would directly save $5.6 billion from these types of reforms and that total health care spending could be reduced further in these reforms reduce the practice of defensive

medicine. c.b.o. concluded that such reforms would increase access to health care as we've seen in texas where doctors instead of retiring decide to continue to practice where they he will feel less like hunted prey and more like the health care providers they always have wanted to be and provide healing and comfort an care to people without access to care right now. mr. president, medical liability reform can't solve all of the problems in our health care system. but no health care reform bill will ever be comprehensive without it. and i would ask my colleagues, why is it that every other idea under the sun seems to have made its way into the medical -- excuse me in the health care reform bills that we have been debating except for one of the most obvious, which is medical liability reform? even president obama acknowledges that huge liability judgments leads doctors to practice defensive medicine and

which drives up the cost of health care for all of us. now is the time for congress to reach the same conclusion and to take steps proven so successful in a number of states. if we reform medical liability laws nationwide, eliminating junk lawsuits and frivolous litigation, we will lower the cost of health care, we will expand access to health care, and we will show the american people that we're listening to them and focusing on solutions that will work. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, i'd like to call up an amendment i have at the desk, amendment number 1903. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from vermont, mr. sanders, proposes an amendment numbered 1903 to amendment number 1813. mr. sanders: mr. president,

i would ask that the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president, this amendment addresses the issue of district heating which to me has an incredible potential as a force for meeting in this country. specifically what this amendment would do is provide $15 million -- $15 million -- in techchnical assistance grants to institutional entities such as municipal utilities, institutions of higher learning, public school districts, local government, or a designee of any of these entities through section 399-a of the energy policy and conservation act as incorporated by the energy independence and security act of 2007. it would do this by directing $15 million within the $100 million for the d.o.e. industrial technologies program

to be directed toward district energy and combined heat and power. mr. president, this nation has a huge opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create jobs, and provide reliable energy for heating and cooling and electricity by moving towards district energy and combined heat and power. district energy systems provide heating and cooling to two or more buildings or facilities through underground pipes. these systems can efficiently meet the heating and cooling needs of towns and cities. much of copenhagen, for example, is now heated through district heating. it can provide electricity and heating for college campuses, for hospitals, for public buildings, or for other facilities. combined heat and power refers to the production of both electricity and thermal energy. you are creating electricity, you are creating heat from the

same power plant. combined heat and power plants can provide thermal energy for district energy systems. in my city of burlington, vermont, where i had the honor of being mayor for eight years, we built a -- the largest wood chip burning plant in the state of vermont. this plant has a 50 megawatt capacity that runs on wood chips and wood waste. roughly 60% of the energy