George Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce and present to my colleagues the Protecting Consumers Phone Records Act. I am pleased to be the lead sponsor of this legislation and I want to thank my colleagues, including Senators Stevens and Inouye, for working with me on this important issue. In recent months, a number of Web sites have been selling consumers' confidential phone records to anyone willing to pay a small fee. According to experts, these records are usually obtained by unscrupulous individuals who fraudulently pose as customers requesting their own records. This common fraud is no less harmful, and in some cases even more disconcerting, than when a third-party uses false pretenses to obtain an innocent person's confidential financial records. In some cases, even physical harm can result from one's private phone records becoming public. We cannot allow these reprehensible practices to continue. The goal of the Protecting Consumers Phone Records Act is to prevent the unauthorized and intrusive third party access of American consumers' phone records. Specifically, our legislation makes it illegal to solicit, acquire or sell a person's confidential phone records without that person's consent. It also specifically prohibits the practice commonly referred to as ``pretexting,'' where individuals obtain records by fraudulently misrepresenting that they have the authorization to obtain the records. Fully combating this problem requires a team effort. That is why our legislation requires telephone companies to comply with minimum security requirements, similar to those required of financial institutions. Companies must do their part to protect their customers' records. In order to deter this bad behavior, our legislation increases the penalties for violators. Should someone fraudulently solicit, obtain or sell an individual's phone records, they will be subject to an $11,000 penalty for each record, up to $11 million. Phone companies are subject to a $30,000 penalty, up to $3 million if they do not sufficiently protect their customers' phone records. Finally, the Protecting Consumers Phone Records Act recognizes the importance of enforcement. The legislation provides the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and State Attorneys General with strengthened enforcement authority. Additionally, telephone companies are given the authority to take legal action against those entities or individuals who have illegally acquired confidential phone records. This legislation will send a clear message to the unscrupulous individuals profiting from the invasion of an innocent individual's privacy, that this fraudulent and deceptive behavior will not be tolerated. We are prepared to use all of the appropriate tools to eliminate this harmful practice. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce and present to my colleagues the Wireless Innovation Act of 2006. I am pleased to be the lead sponsor of this legislation, and I want to thank my colleagues Senator Kerry and Senator Sununu for working with me on this important issue. The goal of the Wireless Innovation Act is to unleash the power of advanced technological innovation to facilitate the development of wireless broadband Internet services. Specifically, our legislation allocates certain areas within the broadcast spectrum that are otherwise unassigned and unused, known as white spaces, for wireless broadband services. Unfortunately today, many people, from rural areas to big cities, either do not have access to broadband Internet service or simply cannot afford it. Our legislation will enable entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed wireless broadband services in areas that otherwise have no connectivity to broadband Internet. Additionally, in areas where broadband access currently is provided, either from a Cable modem or DSL connection, our legislation will allow for a third alternative choice for consumers. The Wireless Innovation Act encourages the most robust and efficient use of this Nation's spectrum. After the transition to digital television is complete in February of 2009, 64 percent of the spectrum allocated to broadcast television use in the Richmond, VA, area will be vacant. Instead of sitting dormant, this valuable spectrum can be used to provide greater Richmond area residents with affordable wireless broadband, which some estimate to be as low as $10 per month. These white spaces exist in virtually every geographic area of the country, and I believe it is a valuable public resource that should be used for the benefit of all American consumers. I recognize and fully appreciate the value that our television broadcasters serve in each and every local community. That is why our legislation protects incumbent local television stations from potential interference that may be caused using white spaces. In fact, my legislation ensures that all unlicensed devices must comply with the clear rules established by the Federal Communications Commission so there is no interference to licensed systems. These rules, along with the power of technology, can protect the television broadcast stations from any harmful interference. Using white spaces to deliver wireless broadband across the country creates a new opportunity for innovators and entrepreneurs to provide a competitive broadband service at extremely low cost. This is especially compelling in rural areas where distance is so frequently the enemy of wire-line networks and the primary reason for the high cost of rural broadband deployment. At a time when the United States is lagging behind much of the world in broadband penetration--and more than 60 percent of the country does not subscribe to broadband service primarily because it is either unavailable or unaffordable--our legislation would put this country one step closer to closing the economic digital divide and achieving ubiquitous broadband Internet access throughout the country. Providing a way to encourage the widespread adoption of broadband Internet access is vital to helping us keep pace with the new global economy. The benefits to Americans will include more jobs, better access to information and commerce, increased productivity, improved healthcare delivery, and more access to education and videoconferencing. While the foreseeable benefit of this legislation is facilitating the development of wireless broadband services, the true beauty of unlicensed spectrum is that it allows for continued advancement and innovation, yielding benefits that are unimaginable today. A decade ago, no one could have imagined WiFi Internet access and yet, through the use of unlicensed spectrum, it was created. Four years ago, I worked on legislation with Senator Boxer to make more unlicensed spectrum available in the upper spectrum bands for further advancement and deployment of WiFi services. The Federal Communications Commission followed our lead and eventually made this spectrum available. Since then, WiFi has flourished. Today, WiFi Internet access can be found in consumers' homes, Starbucks Coffee shops, book stores, entire cities such as Alexandria, VA, and even here in the Senate Office buildings. The Telecommunications Industry Association estimates that sales of WiFi equipment reached $4.35 billion in 2004, and predicts spending on WiFi infrastructure will increase to $7 billion in 2008. It is now time to enable the next generation of wireless innovation by allowing these white spaces to be used for next generation wireless broadband services. A guiding principle I have followed throughout my time in public service is that the Internet should remain as accessible as possible to all people in all parts of the country forever. That is why I sponsored the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, signed by the President in December 2004. That guiding principle is also what leads me, together with Senators Kerry and Sununu to introduce the Wireless Innovation Act today. With passage of this legislation, we can move forward to create an alternative that promotes broadband adoption using advances in technology and spectrum efficiency. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce and present to my colleagues the Wireless Innovation Act of 2006. I am pleased to be the lead sponsor of this legislation, and I want to thank my colleagues Senator Kerry and Senator Sununu for working with me on this important issue. The goal of the Wireless Innovation Act is to unleash the power of advanced technological innovation to facilitate the development of wireless broadband Internet services. Specifically, our legislation allocates certain areas within the broadcast spectrum that are otherwise unassigned and unused, known as white spaces, for wireless broadband services. Unfortunately today, many people, from rural areas to big cities, either do not have access to broadband Internet service or simply cannot afford it. Our legislation will enable entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed wireless broadband services in areas that otherwise have no connectivity to broadband Internet. Additionally, in areas where broadband access currently is provided, either from a Cable modem or DSL connection, our legislation will allow for a third alternative choice for consumers. The Wireless Innovation Act encourages the most robust and efficient use of this Nation's spectrum. After the transition to digital television is complete in February of 2009, 64 percent of the spectrum allocated to broadcast television use in the Richmond, VA, area will be vacant. Instead of sitting dormant, this valuable spectrum can be used to provide greater Richmond area residents with affordable wireless broadband, which some estimate to be as low as $10 per month. These white spaces exist in virtually every geographic area of the country, and I believe it is a valuable public resource that should be used for the benefit of all American consumers. I recognize and fully appreciate the value that our television broadcasters serve in each and every local community. That is why our legislation protects incumbent local television stations from potential interference that may be caused using white spaces. In fact, my legislation ensures that all unlicensed devices must comply with the clear rules established by the Federal Communications Commission so there is no interference to licensed systems. These rules, along with the power of technology, can protect the television broadcast stations from any harmful interference. Using white spaces to deliver wireless broadband across the country creates a new opportunity for innovators and entrepreneurs to provide a competitive broadband service at extremely low cost. This is especially compelling in rural areas where distance is so frequently the enemy of wire-line networks and the primary reason for the high cost of rural broadband deployment. At a time when the United States is lagging behind much of the world in broadband penetration--and more than 60 percent of the country does not subscribe to broadband service primarily because it is either unavailable or unaffordable--our legislation would put this country one step closer to closing the economic digital divide and achieving ubiquitous broadband Internet access throughout the country. Providing a way to encourage the widespread adoption of broadband Internet access is vital to helping us keep pace with the new global economy. The benefits to Americans will include more jobs, better access to information and commerce, increased productivity, improved healthcare delivery, and more access to education and videoconferencing. While the foreseeable benefit of this legislation is facilitating the development of wireless broadband services, the true beauty of unlicensed spectrum is that it allows for continued advancement and innovation, yielding benefits that are unimaginable today. A decade ago, no one could have imagined WiFi Internet access and yet, through the use of unlicensed spectrum, it was created. Four years ago, I worked on legislation with Senator Boxer to make more unlicensed spectrum available in the upper spectrum bands for further advancement and deployment of WiFi services. The Federal Communications Commission followed our lead and eventually made this spectrum available. Since then, WiFi has flourished. Today, WiFi Internet access can be found in consumers' homes, Starbucks Coffee shops, book stores, entire cities such as Alexandria, VA, and even here in the Senate Office buildings. The Telecommunications Industry Association estimates that sales of WiFi equipment reached $4.35 billion in 2004, and predicts spending on WiFi infrastructure will increase to $7 billion in 2008. It is now time to enable the next generation of wireless innovation by allowing these white spaces to be used for next generation wireless broadband services. A guiding principle I have followed throughout my time in public service is that the Internet should remain as accessible as possible to all people in all parts of the country forever. That is why I sponsored the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, signed by the President in December 2004. That guiding principle is also what leads me, together with Senators Kerry and Sununu to introduce the Wireless Innovation Act today. With passage of this legislation, we can move forward to create an alternative that promotes broadband adoption using advances in technology and spectrum efficiency. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLEN

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

Mr. ALLEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I rise to speak on a resolution regarding a constitutional amendment I am introducing today. It is the third part of my three-point plan to restore fiscal accountability and common sense to Washington. It is a resolution, in particular, to amend the Constitution to require a balanced Federal budget. The continued growth in Government, coupled with our enormous deficit, make a balanced budget amendment a vital tool for bringing this fiscal house back in order and restraining the growing appetite of the Federal Government to take more money from the people in taxes, and this is money that is coming from families, working people, from men and women who run their own small businesses; and also when the Federal Government is taking more money, it means they can be meddling in more things that are best left to the people or the States--if Government needs to be involved at all. The Federal Government ought to be paying attention and be focused on its key reasons for being created in the first place by the people in the States, and that is national defense--making sure the military is strong and that they have the most advanced equipment and armament for our men and women in uniform as they secure our freedom. We need a national missile defense system. Those are the sorts of things that are the primary responsibility of the Federal Government, as well as key research areas, whether it is in nanotechnology, aeronautics, or in other areas working with not just Federal agencies but the private sector and our colleges and universities. As this Senate gets to work on the fiscal year 2007 budget, our country's fiscal discipline and accountability must be improved. We have a budget deficit not because the Federal Government has a revenue problem; it is because the Federal Government has a spending problem. The Government doesn't tax too little, it spends too much. We must focus our efforts on spending the people's money much smarter, not taking more of their money because it is convenient or expedient. Now, to control spending, I have revived a pair of ideas that Ronald Reagan advocated when he was President. In Ronald Reagan's farewell address to the American people, he said there were two things he wished he had accomplished as President, and what he wanted future Presidents, both Republican and Democrat, to have. They were the line-item veto and a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. As always, and so often, Ronald Reagan was right. That is why I have made the line-item veto and the balanced budget amendment the first two points of my three-point plan to bring fiscal accountability and responsibility to Washington. Let's start first with the line-item veto. When I was honored by the people of Virginia as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I had the power of the line-item veto. I used it 17 times. I saw how useful a tool that was as Governor to knock out undesirable, nonessential spending, or untoward or undesirable policies. It is a power--the line- item veto--or an authority that actually 46 Governors in the U.S. enjoy. It is a very powerful tool to cut wasteful spending and undesirable programs. In fact, after you use it a few times, you don't have to use it as much, because the legislative branch understands that, gosh, he actually is going to use that power, and when it comes to the final budget or appropriations bills, the undesirable or wasteful programs or spending are not in it. The President of the United States, in my view, should have the same power I had as Governor of Virginia, and that is the line-item veto. Together with Senator Jim Talent of Missouri, last September we introduced a constitutional amendment to provide the President with line-item veto authority. It is high time for that. The reason we need a constitutional amendment is that there were times when we were trying do it statutorily. I would be in favor of statutory methods, rather than an amendment, but the Supreme Court struck down the last effort. I think the President, as well as the Congress, ought to be accountable for some of these spending items that create such controversy and are absurd or wasteful. By the way, we need to vote on this. If this goes to the States, I have no question that the States will quickly ratify such a constitutional amendment because, after all, they give their Governors such power. Secondly, we need a balanced budget amendment. This is something many States have, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and virtually the rest of the States. One of the best ways, in my view, to eliminate the Federal deficit and limit the size and scope of the Government is to wrestle it down with the chains of the Constitution. I would also add that balancing the budget is not just a matter of making sure that expenditures are equal to revenue; it is about making sure the Federal Government fulfills its proper, focused, constitutional role--and not expanding into everything that is not necessarily a Federal prerogative, but best left to the people or the States. We all know that a big, bloated Federal Government stifles innovation, saps initiative, and reduces personal responsibility. The third part of my plan is a proposal I offered last week, which I know won't be all that popular in this Chamber, but I think it will be much appreciated and understood by real people in the real world. I have proposed legislation that provides a powerful incentive for Senators and Congressmen to perform their jobs on time, as people do in the private sector. We have a full-time legislature here and we go into session on January 3. One of our prime responsibilities is to pass appropriations bills before the next fiscal year, which is October 1. But it is, to me, deplorable that full-time legislators cannot get their job done on time by October 1. Then, of course, we end up with continuing resolutions, and several months later, some time after Thanksgiving but before Christmas, all kinds of unknown, unscrutinized spending occurs. It gets passed in the dead of night, thinking nobody will notice what is in all these appropriations bills--and actually a lot of people don't know what is in those appropriations bills. That is why I want to impose on Congress what I call the ``paycheck penalty.'' The paycheck penalty says to Members of Congress, if you fail to pass all your appropriations measures by the start of the fiscal year, October 1, which is your job, what you are paid to do, your paychecks will be withheld until you complete your job. Now, taken together, these three measures will eliminate the need to raise taxes to eliminate the deficit. The tax reductions enacted in the last 5 years have helped our country get out of recession. It has incented more investment, created many new jobs--in fact, 4.5 million new jobs--in the private sector; thereby, from all this economic growth and prosperity and more people working in businesses, large, medium, and small doing better, tax receipts to the Government have increased. To illustrate the point, from 2004 to 2005, tax receipts to the Federal Government grew at a rate of 14.5 percent, or $274 billion. This growth is more than twice the rate of economic growth. So the economic growth is strong, but the tax revenues are twice as much to the Federal Government. To further this point, the President's budget forecasts that tax revenues will grow an additional 6.1 percent, or $132 billion, from 2005 to 2006. From the tax cuts of the Reagan administration to the tax cuts we passed in this new century, the fact is that lower taxes stimulate economic growth, stimulate job creation, and stimulate expansion, which in turn increases revenues to the Federal Government. More important, low taxes make this country more competitive for investment and jobs here, rather than people going to invest in places such as China or elsewhere in the world. When people are able to keep more of what they earn, they spend it, save it, invest it, they may expand their business, and they may get more innovative capital equipment, and the fact is lower taxes make this country more competitive and people more prosperous. The opportunity created by Americans spending the fruits of their own labor, as opposed to the Government, is the path to bringing fiscal sanity to the Federal budget. So to avoid future pressure for counterproductive, harmful tax increases, and to achieve a balanced budget, we must make these dramatic changes in how the Federal Government spends the taxpayers' money: the line-item veto, balanced budget amendment, and the paycheck penalty for Members of Congress who have not done their jobs on time. As we closed 2005, Madam President, the Federal Government was responsible for a gross Federal debt of $8.2 trillion. One must ask, how did we get here? Consider these statistics from the last 5 years: Federal spending has increased 33 percent. In 2005, the per-household spending by our Government has grown to $21,878 per year. That figure is compared to the per-household tax, on average, of $19,062 per year, leaving an annual per-household deficit of about $2,800. The macro result is an annual budget deficit in the hundreds of billions of dollars. We are in a time of war, this war on terror, and enormous national disasters have also befallen our country in Louisiana, Alabama, Texas, and in Florida, in the past year. That is why I am introducing this resolution. Even when those occur, this amendment does require the Federal Government to achieve a balanced budget within 5 years of ratification by the States. Each year, the budget deficit would be reduced by 20 percent, until the Federal budget is balanced. This is a phased-in approach, which is realistic and provides needed time for Congress to amend the budget and appropriations processes to provide for a balanced budget. I fully understand that national and global events can significantly affect our country's budgetary needs. Thus, I have included a provision that allows for a waiver in the event of war. However, to ensure deficits resulting from a war do not continue in perpetuity, the provision provides for a 5-year window following the end of the conflict to reduce any deficits that may have accumulated. Domestic catastrophes can also wreak havoc on the Federal Government's budget, as well as those of the States in Louisiana, Mississippi and, to some extent Florida, which we have recently seen devastated by hurricanes. To address such circumstances, the resolution also includes a provision that would allow expenditures in excess of revenues, provided three-fifths of each House of Congress approves, which I think Congress would have done in these situations if this were in effect last year and presently. Now the risks of budget deficits and national debt are well known: the collapse of the dollar, a significant reduction in national savings, and the inability to fund programs vital to the Nation's security and well-being. It also means if you are putting in more and more tax revenues to finance the debt, there is less money there for key areas such as national defense, homeland security, education, research in science, and also engineering. So to prevent these events, we need an institutional mechanism to get this overspending under control. Based on past performance, it will take, of course, a change in the Constitution. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, we need to bind the Congress with a change in the Constitution to prevent present Congresses from burdening future generations with perpetual debt. I believe all of us, if we look at it seriously and responsibly, recognize and grasp the seriousness of this problem. I am hopeful that this Senate will be able to make the difficult choices to make sure that the next generation of Americans is not burdened with overwhelming debt or higher taxes from a burdensome, large Federal Government. A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, I sincerely believe from my experiences as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, will be a very valuable, useful, and effective tool in making that goal a reality. The same applies to the line-item veto authority for the President. I also believe very strongly that this Senate and the other body, the House, can get the appropriations bills done on time by October 1. If not, I think paychecks ought to be withheld until it is done. So I hope that my colleagues recognize the seriousness, the importance, and the urgency of these responsible measures, these ideas. These measures include getting our fiscal house in order, protecting the taxpayers from tax increases in the future, and making sure this country is the world capital of innovation. These measures include investment by the private sector, more competitiveness compared to other countries because of lower taxes, Federal regulatory policies, sound energy policy with more development and exploration here at home, as well as using clean coal and advanced nuclear and biofuels and new technologies. We also must make sure our fiscal house is in order for Americans to compete and succeed in the future. I urge my colleagues to consider this resolution and join me in this effort for America's future.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I rise to speak on a resolution regarding a constitutional amendment I am introducing today. It is the third part of my three-point plan to restore fiscal accountability and common sense to Washington. It is a resolution, in particular, to amend the Constitution to require a balanced Federal budget. The continued growth in Government, coupled with our enormous deficit, make a balanced budget amendment a vital tool for bringing this fiscal house back in order and restraining the growing appetite of the Federal Government to take more money from the people in taxes, and this is money that is coming from families, working people, from men and women who run their own small businesses; and also when the Federal Government is taking more money, it means they can be meddling in more things that are best left to the people or the States--if Government needs to be involved at all. The Federal Government ought to be paying attention and be focused on its key reasons for being created in the first place by the people in the States, and that is national defense--making sure the military is strong and that they have the most advanced equipment and armament for our men and women in uniform as they secure our freedom. We need a national missile defense system. Those are the sorts of things that are the primary responsibility of the Federal Government, as well as key research areas, whether it is in nanotechnology, aeronautics, or in other areas working with not just Federal agencies but the private sector and our colleges and universities. As this Senate gets to work on the fiscal year 2007 budget, our country's fiscal discipline and accountability must be improved. We have a budget deficit not because the Federal Government has a revenue problem; it is because the Federal Government has a spending problem. The Government doesn't tax too little, it spends too much. We must focus our efforts on spending the people's money much smarter, not taking more of their money because it is convenient or expedient. Now, to control spending, I have revived a pair of ideas that Ronald Reagan advocated when he was President. In Ronald Reagan's farewell address to the American people, he said there were two things he wished he had accomplished as President, and what he wanted future Presidents, both Republican and Democrat, to have. They were the line-item veto and a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. As always, and so often, Ronald Reagan was right. That is why I have made the line-item veto and the balanced budget amendment the first two points of my three-point plan to bring fiscal accountability and responsibility to Washington. Let's start first with the line-item veto. When I was honored by the people of Virginia as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I had the power of the line-item veto. I used it 17 times. I saw how useful a tool that was as Governor to knock out undesirable, nonessential spending, or untoward or undesirable policies. It is a power--the line- item veto--or an authority that actually 46 Governors in the U.S. enjoy. It is a very powerful tool to cut wasteful spending and undesirable programs. In fact, after you use it a few times, you don't have to use it as much, because the legislative branch understands that, gosh, he actually is going to use that power, and when it comes to the final budget or appropriations bills, the undesirable or wasteful programs or spending are not in it. The President of the United States, in my view, should have the same power I had as Governor of Virginia, and that is the line-item veto. Together with Senator Jim Talent of Missouri, last September we introduced a constitutional amendment to provide the President with line-item veto authority. It is high time for that. The reason we need a constitutional amendment is that there were times when we were trying do it statutorily. I would be in favor of statutory methods, rather than an amendment, but the Supreme Court struck down the last effort. I think the President, as well as the Congress, ought to be accountable for some of these spending items that create such controversy and are absurd or wasteful. By the way, we need to vote on this. If this goes to the States, I have no question that the States will quickly ratify such a constitutional amendment because, after all, they give their Governors such power. Secondly, we need a balanced budget amendment. This is something many States have, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and virtually the rest of the States. One of the best ways, in my view, to eliminate the Federal deficit and limit the size and scope of the Government is to wrestle it down with the chains of the Constitution. I would also add that balancing the budget is not just a matter of making sure that expenditures are equal to revenue; it is about making sure the Federal Government fulfills its proper, focused, constitutional role--and not expanding into everything that is not necessarily a Federal prerogative, but best left to the people or the States. We all know that a big, bloated Federal Government stifles innovation, saps initiative, and reduces personal responsibility. The third part of my plan is a proposal I offered last week, which I know won't be all that popular in this Chamber, but I think it will be much appreciated and understood by real people in the real world. I have proposed legislation that provides a powerful incentive for Senators and Congressmen to perform their jobs on time, as people do in the private sector. We have a full-time legislature here and we go into session on January 3. One of our prime responsibilities is to pass appropriations bills before the next fiscal year, which is October 1. But it is, to me, deplorable that full-time legislators cannot get their job done on time by October 1. Then, of course, we end up with continuing resolutions, and several months later, some time after Thanksgiving but before Christmas, all kinds of unknown, unscrutinized spending occurs. It gets passed in the dead of night, thinking nobody will notice what is in all these appropriations bills--and actually a lot of people don't know what is in those appropriations bills. That is why I want to impose on Congress what I call the ``paycheck penalty.'' The paycheck penalty says to Members of Congress, if you fail to pass all your appropriations measures by the start of the fiscal year, October 1, which is your job, what you are paid to do, your paychecks will be withheld until you complete your job. Now, taken together, these three measures will eliminate the need to raise taxes to eliminate the deficit. The tax reductions enacted in the last 5 years have helped our country get out of recession. It has incented more investment, created many new jobs--in fact, 4.5 million new jobs--in the private sector; thereby, from all this economic growth and prosperity and more people working in businesses, large, medium, and small doing better, tax receipts to the Government have increased. To illustrate the point, from 2004 to 2005, tax receipts to the Federal Government grew at a rate of 14.5 percent, or $274 billion. This growth is more than twice the rate of economic growth. So the economic growth is strong, but the tax revenues are twice as much to the Federal Government. To further this point, the President's budget forecasts that tax revenues will grow an additional 6.1 percent, or $132 billion, from 2005 to 2006. From the tax cuts of the Reagan administration to the tax cuts we passed in this new century, the fact is that lower taxes stimulate economic growth, stimulate job creation, and stimulate expansion, which in turn increases revenues to the Federal Government. More important, low taxes make this country more competitive for investment and jobs here, rather than people going to invest in places such as China or elsewhere in the world. When people are able to keep more of what they earn, they spend it, save it, invest it, they may expand their business, and they may get more innovative capital equipment, and the fact is lower taxes make this country more competitive and people more prosperous. The opportunity created by Americans spending the fruits of their own labor, as opposed to the Government, is the path to bringing fiscal sanity to the Federal budget. So to avoid future pressure for counterproductive, harmful tax increases, and to achieve a balanced budget, we must make these dramatic changes in how the Federal Government spends the taxpayers' money: the line-item veto, balanced budget amendment, and the paycheck penalty for Members of Congress who have not done their jobs on time. As we closed 2005, Madam President, the Federal Government was responsible for a gross Federal debt of $8.2 trillion. One must ask, how did we get here? Consider these statistics from the last 5 years: Federal spending has increased 33 percent. In 2005, the per-household spending by our Government has grown to $21,878 per year. That figure is compared to the per-household tax, on average, of $19,062 per year, leaving an annual per-household deficit of about $2,800. The macro result is an annual budget deficit in the hundreds of billions of dollars. We are in a time of war, this war on terror, and enormous national disasters have also befallen our country in Louisiana, Alabama, Texas, and in Florida, in the past year. That is why I am introducing this resolution. Even when those occur, this amendment does require the Federal Government to achieve a balanced budget within 5 years of ratification by the States. Each year, the budget deficit would be reduced by 20 percent, until the Federal budget is balanced. This is a phased-in approach, which is realistic and provides needed time for Congress to amend the budget and appropriations processes to provide for a balanced budget. I fully understand that national and global events can significantly affect our country's budgetary needs. Thus, I have included a provision that allows for a waiver in the event of war. However, to ensure deficits resulting from a war do not continue in perpetuity, the provision provides for a 5-year window following the end of the conflict to reduce any deficits that may have accumulated. Domestic catastrophes can also wreak havoc on the Federal Government's budget, as well as those of the States in Louisiana, Mississippi and, to some extent Florida, which we have recently seen devastated by hurricanes. To address such circumstances, the resolution also includes a provision that would allow expenditures in excess of revenues, provided three-fifths of each House of Congress approves, which I think Congress would have done in these situations if this were in effect last year and presently. Now the risks of budget deficits and national debt are well known: the collapse of the dollar, a significant reduction in national savings, and the inability to fund programs vital to the Nation's security and well-being. It also means if you are putting in more and more tax revenues to finance the debt, there is less money there for key areas such as national defense, homeland security, education, research in science, and also engineering. So to prevent these events, we need an institutional mechanism to get this overspending under control. Based on past performance, it will take, of course, a change in the Constitution. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, we need to bind the Congress with a change in the Constitution to prevent present Congresses from burdening future generations with perpetual debt. I believe all of us, if we look at it seriously and responsibly, recognize and grasp the seriousness of this problem. I am hopeful that this Senate will be able to make the difficult choices to make sure that the next generation of Americans is not burdened with overwhelming debt or higher taxes from a burdensome, large Federal Government. A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, I sincerely believe from my experiences as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, will be a very valuable, useful, and effective tool in making that goal a reality. The same applies to the line-item veto authority for the President. I also believe very strongly that this Senate and the other body, the House, can get the appropriations bills done on time by October 1. If not, I think paychecks ought to be withheld until it is done. So I hope that my colleagues recognize the seriousness, the importance, and the urgency of these responsible measures, these ideas. These measures include getting our fiscal house in order, protecting the taxpayers from tax increases in the future, and making sure this country is the world capital of innovation. These measures include investment by the private sector, more competitiveness compared to other countries because of lower taxes, Federal regulatory policies, sound energy policy with more development and exploration here at home, as well as using clean coal and advanced nuclear and biofuels and new technologies. We also must make sure our fiscal house is in order for Americans to compete and succeed in the future. I urge my colleagues to consider this resolution and join me in this effort for America's future.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Monday, February 6, 2006, at 2 p.m. for a hearing titled, ``Hurricane Katrina: Managing Law Enforcement and Communications in a Catastrophe.''

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Executive Nominations'' on Monday, February 6, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in Hart Senate Office Building Room 226. The hearing is expected to continue throughout the afternoon. Witness list Panel I: The Honorable Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Mr. ALLEN

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

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise late in the afternoon, early evening, in remembrance of a great patriotic leader, a person who I think was America's greatest leader of the 20th century and one of history's alltime adherence advocates and leaders for freedom, individual freedom, liberty, and the advancement of security for free and just societies. The gentleman I am talking about would have been 95 years old today, and that is Ronald Wilson Reagan. I would hope, actually, on future birthdays, the date of the birth of Ronald Wilson Reagan, some Senator will stand in this Chamber and remind Americans and remember Ronald Reagan, his words, his ideas, and his inspiration. Ronald Reagan was one who motivated me to get involved in organized politics, and there are literally tens of thousands of others. There are certain people, though, if one looks through history, whose words are ones you can use; they are just enduring principles. I think of Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Mark Twain--all those great quotes from Mark Twain-- even Will Rogers. But in our day, the person for inspiration, to help us decide how to meet the challenges of our day, was Ronald Reagan. President Reagan did leave the White House 17 years ago. For some young people, this seems like a long time ago. President Reagan's words and deeds are still so applicable today. He left our world 2 years ago, but we are still living in the wake of the Reagan era. It was Ronald Reagan, let's remember, along with Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, who fundamentally changed all the dynamics of the Cold War, to bury communism and advance human liberty. While many in those days accepted the perpetual menace of communism and the perpetual servitude of millions of men and women locked behind the Iron Curtain, Ronald Reagan did not. His philosophy toward the Cold War was radically different from the elite sages of the establishment. As Governor of California and then also as President, he offered very clear and refreshing ideas. He was asked one time: Mr. Reagan, what is your strategy on the Cold War? He declared: About the Cold War, my view is that we win and they lose. He came into office as President. In his inaugural address in 1981, he called for an era of national renewal, and this was something very important after the years of malaise that we had in the late 1970s. That is exactly what his 8-year Presidency turned out to be--an era of national renewal for security, for opportunity, and for foundational values. The Reagan revolution reversed the high unemployment, high inflation, economic policies of the 1970s and unleashed the greatest economic boom in American history. His policies proved that low taxes are good for the taxpayers, and they are also good for the economy, with more investment and more jobs and, for those who care about it, generating more revenue for the Government. After his tax cuts started to impact the economy in 1983, the wheels of American commerce started to move again. We saw an explosion of job creation, innovation, and investment. In foreign affairs, President Reagan scrapped the policy of coexistence. He made the advancement of freedom, not containment, into the foundational principle of America's foreign policy. He rebuilt America's military strength. He started and initiated the Strategic Defense Initiative which put unprecedented strains on the Soviet economy and their ability to finance their military. He refused to be cowed into silence when talking about our enemy or the evils of communism. He called the Soviet Union an evil empire. Oh, they criticized him, but, indeed, that was an accurate description. He was a vocal, tireless champion for freedom. He went to Brandenburg Gate in 1987 and boldly said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' He was criticized, but 2 years later, the Berlin Wall was gone, and 2 years after, the Soviet Union itself was gone, discarded into the ``ash heap of history,'' as Ronald Reagan prophesied during the depths of the Cold War. Today, because of Ronald Reagan, there are literally hundreds of millions of people who were once locked behind the Iron Curtain living in countries we now know as free countries--Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, former East Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and added countries such as Ukraine and Georgia, which are now tasting that sweet nectar of liberty as opposed to being behind the Iron Curtain. It is because Ronald Reagan provided us with a perseverance--he persevered, our allies persevered, particularly in Western Europe, and freedom has prevailed. Five years after he left office in 1994, we were all crushed to learn about Ronald Reagan being diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. He concluded his farewell address and letter to the American people by writing: Now I begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America there will always be a bright new dawn ahead. As always, Ronald Reagan was right. Despite new and numerous challenges, this blessed country, America, has stood strong for freedom, extending the blessings of liberty and prosperity to a whole new generation of Americans and sharing those blessings with even more people who live here in this world. When Ronald Reagan passed away on June 5, 2004, I know you, Mr. President--and I see Senator Hatch from Utah here--and all of America grieved and mourned. He was my political hero. But I also felt grateful, grateful for our country, for America, that we and, indeed, the world were blessed to have had Ronald Reagan's commonsense leadership and unwavering commitment to the ideals of freedom throughout the world. Today, on what would have been his 95th birthday, I reflect on everything Ronald Reagan accomplished during his extraordinary life. If you want to measure a person's greatness and what he or she did in their life, you kind of determine it by the number of people who were positively impacted by their efforts, their deeds, and their life--in Ronald Reagan's case, as I said, the hundreds of millions of people in Central and Eastern Europe who were liberated from the tyranny of communism, but we also have Americans, now over 300 million strong, who have been enriched by the peace and prosperity that resulted from Ronald Reagan's courageous commitment to foundational ideals. There are many such as myself--and really too many to count--who were inspired by meeting Ronald Reagan in person, who were touched by his great character and integrity, his unfailing optimism and patriotism, his genuine good will and sense of humor, and his words that applied the philosophy of our Founders, whether it is George Washington in his peace-through-strength approach or James Madison in understanding our representative democracy or the spirit of this country as written by Thomas Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence. Everyone remembers meeting Ronald Reagan. I met him first when I was in high school. We moved out to California when my father became head coach of the L.A. Rams. Ronald Reagan that year was elected Governor and used to come to practices. One thing I really remember about Ronald Reagan is that he didn't just talk about ideals and principles; as Governor and as President, he put them into action. He realized we are all put here on Earth to do something, and we cheat ourselves or others if we do not advocate and advance those ideas. President Reagan gave my father in the 1980s a plaque which bore his famous quote: ``If not us, who? If not now, when?'' My father kept that plaque on his desk. When my father passed away, my mother gave it to me, saying I should have it. I had it on my mantel as Governor of Virginia in the capitol designed by Thomas Jefferson. I keep that plaque, ``If not us, who? If not now, when?'' on my mantel in the U.S. Senate. Ronald Reagan was a man of action. He was one who produced many great quotes over the years. In fact, a whole industry has sprung up around them. I share with my colleagues and American people my very favorites: No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. Here is another great quote which is the essence of my philosophy: Every dollar the government does not take from us, every decision the government does not make for us will make our economy stronger, our lives more abundant, and our future more free. He also understood our country: In America, our origins matter less than our destination, and that is what democracy is all about. Today, we face challenges. We have a war on terror. I believe our mission in this present war on terror can find us constructive examples from President Reagan's administration. We are making progress in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the coming years, there will be both breakthroughs and setbacks in both countries as we lead this generational struggle against the forces of Islamic terrorism and fascism. But let's remember Ronald Reagan. The Cold War lasted for nearly 50 years, and he persevered. Let's keep and remember Ronald Reagan's legacy of strong leadership as a guiding example to ourselves as we adapt and protect America in this war on terror. In the area of our economy, we want to make sure the United States is the world capital of innovation, a land of opportunity for all, and is more competitive. If we do so, we need to keep Ronald Reagan in mind as we choose our country's economic policies. I mentioned earlier Ronald Reagan's tax cuts in the 1980s and the positive impact that had for jobs, investment, and economic progress in our country. When I came to the Senate in 2001, this country was actually in the midst of an economic slowdown. Over the next 3 years, we passed three rounds of tax cuts, and as a result we have an economic growth in this country which is very good, with rising income, more jobs, more investment, and record home ownership. We have even had record tax revenue for the Government because more people are working, investing, and creating more jobs. However, Americans are going to be hit with tax increases in the next 2 years if we do not prevent tax increases, which would put a damper on our economy, create less investment, make our country less competitive and, in fact, have fewer jobs for the men and women of our country. President Reagan showed us how tax relief can revitalize and recharge the American economy. Let's not hurt American jobs and American people and competitiveness by raising taxes. We should take action this year to prevent tax increases, and the Federal Government actually ought to be looking to reduce taxes to make our country more competitive for investment, jobs, and opportunity. People are concerned, as I am, about fiscal accountability. Again, let's look to Ronald Reagan for guidance. I point out that in President Reagan's farewell address to the American people as President, he said that he was ``still sounding off about those things I didn't get accomplished while I was President. First, I'm out there stumping to help future Presidents--Republican or Democrat--get those tools they need to bring the budget under control. And those tools are a line-item veto and a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.'' Today, the bloated cost of Government has become indefensible. We need to bring fiscal accountability to Washington. The Federal Government needs to spend smarter and learn to do more with less. And that starts, in my view, with reviving a pair of ideas Ronald Reagan shared in his farewell address: the line-item veto and the balanced budget amendment. When I was Governor, I had the power of the line-item veto. Forty-six Governors have that power. Let me tell you, it is useful. It is a way of knocking out wasteful, undesirable expenditures and policies. You don't have to use it too much after you use it a few times, and the message is understood. I want the President to have the same power I had as Governor, and so, together with Senator Jim Talent of Missouri, we have introduced a constitutional amendment to provide the President the line-item veto so that the President and the Congress can be held accountable for nonessential Government spending. I will also be proposing a constitutional amendment that will require the President and the Congress to balance the budget every year. That is important because if deficits continue, we will end up with higher interest rates. Higher interest rates result in fewer and fewer Americans, especially young people, able to afford their own home. Owning one's own home is the American dream. It is also a question of fairness and opportunity. So to prevent interest rates from rising, we do need the institutional mechanism to get this deficit under control and we need to wrestle it down with a change of the Constitution. Taken together, I believe lower taxes on the taxpayers, coupled with both the line-item veto and a balanced budget amendment, will restore fiscal accountability and common sense to Washington, and be a fitting capstone to the Reagan legacy. Ronald Reagan is no longer with us in body, but he is surely with us in spirit. On his 95th birthday, my thoughts are with him and his family, particularly his wonderful bride and wife Nancy, who exhibited such grace and dignity as First Lady and later in caring for her husband during his very long goodbye. My thoughts are also on America, this land Ronald Reagan loved so much and led so well, a land that has been continually blessed by God with great patriots such as President Reagan, who possessed strong character, integrity, and commitment to enduring values and principles. I am going to close with this observation by President Reagan, which I believe is still true. We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say we're in a time where there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look. There are heroes all across this country. There are heroes serving this country on ships. They are serving us in Iraq. Mr. President, President Reagan: Happy birthday. Your dream lives on. It warms the hearts and it cheers the spirit of freedom-loving people throughout the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I rise to echo and add to the remarks of the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn. On this first day of debate, I rise to express my strong support for the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to be a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. There has been much discussion, advertising on the radio, in newspapers, and on television. There has been commentary about Judge Alito, and that is fine. That is the way it should be. Federal judges are appointed for life. This is the only time that the people's representatives--those of us in the Senate--have an opportunity to scrutinize an individual who has been nominated for the Federal bench in a lifetime appointment. So that scrutiny is appropriate. I am hopeful that this scrutiny and this discussion will be of a civil nature. Sometimes it has not been, over the last several years in this body. I do believe, though, that all nominees who are reported out of a committee, whether the Judiciary Committee--for that matter, any committee--Foreign Relations, or other committees, ought to be accorded the fairness of an up-or-down vote at the end of this gauntlet. If you are going to make someone go through all of this, have all these slings and arrows, some relevant, some tangential, and some completely irrelevant. If they are going to go through all of this, they ought to be accorded the fairness of an up-or-down vote. I believe if the approaches taken over the last several years for certain nominees continue, as a threat or as an actual practical impediment to someone receiving a vote, it will make it much more difficult for any President to be able to recruit from the private sector qualified men and women who have the experience, the personality, the insight, the leadership, and the ability to serve our Government. That might be in a variety of different fields. That is why I think it is important that we as Senators change and stop this practice of holding up nominees and not according them the fairness of an up-or-down vote. With John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, we allowed a lot of commentary and a vote. I hope the same will occur for Judge Alito. There have been indications from those on the other side of the aisle that they are reserving the right to filibuster, or require a 60-vote majority to have a vote on the confirmation of Judge Alito. My reaction is if they move forward with such a filibuster, ``make my day.'' We will enjoy pulling the constitutional trigger to allow Judge Alito a fair or up-or-down vote. I don't think it is too much to ask Senators to come here when the nomination is called forth to get off these cushy seats, stand up straight, and vote yes or vote no. That is a matter of fairness. It is also our constitutional responsibility in advise and consent. When analyzing or determining whether I am going to support a particular judicial nominee, what matters most to me for these lifetime appointments is trying to discern that nominee's judicial philosophy. Trying to determine whether they believe what they are saying as to what they think the proper role of a judge will be. We have seen through the years that certain individuals get appointed for a lifetime appointment, and they end up being completely different than what they have said in the hearings, in interviews with the President, or interviews with the Senators. Past performance is, in my view, usually a reliable indicator of future action. In my view, regarding this particular nomination of Judge Alito, the best way to determine what kind of Justice Samuel Alito will be on the Supreme Court is to look at his 15 years of services as a circuit court judge. In his years on the bench, he has embodied the philosophy I like to see in judges. I believe the proper role of a judge is to apply the law, not invent the law. Judges are to uphold the Constitution, not amend it by judicial decree. The proper role of a judge is to protect and indeed defend our God- given rights, not to create or deny rights out of thin air. They are not to act as a legislator. In Judge Alito's case, no matter the issue, whether or not they are politically charged issues in the realm of electoral politics, he seems, from my reading and review, to have followed a consistent, thoughtful, deliberative process to decide cases. This is what judges are supposed to do. They are not supposed to be issuing cases based on predetermined ideology, or an eye toward future confirmation hearings. They should faithfully apply the law. They ought to apply the evidence before the court to the law in that particular case before the court. As he stated in his opening statement before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Alito recognized a judge's only obligation is to the rule of law. And in every single case, the judge has to do what the law requires. In my opinion, that is the essence of the fair adjudication of disputes. There is credibility, there is reliability, and there is integrity in that approach. Judge Alito has exemplary, scholarly, and experienced qualifications--and especially the proper judicial philosophy--to serve honorably as a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. In Judge Alito's 15 years on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, he has demonstrated his understanding of the proper role of a judge in our constitutional system of Government, and will apply the law fairly and equally. Judge Alito, in my view, genuinely respects the rule of law in our representative democracy. In recognition of Judge Alito's outstanding service on the Federal bench, the American Bar Association has given him their highest rating of well qualified. The American Bar Association's criteria for their evaluation are integrity, professionalism, competence, and judicial temperament. Let me share with my colleagues what Stephen Tober, the chairman of the American Bar Association Standing Committee, had to say. He said: On The Federal Judiciary: ``Needless to say, to merit an evaluation of well-qualified, the nominee must possess professional qualifications and achievements of the highest standing. . . . We are ultimately persuaded that Judge Alito has, throughout his 15 years on the Federal Bench, established a record of both proper judicial conduct and even-handed application in seeking to do what is fundamentally fair. . . . His integrity, his professional competence and his judicial temperament are, indeed, found to be of the highest standard.'' That came from Chairman Tober on January 12 of this year. Judge Alito also provided to all of us an indication of his temperament and qualifications during his confirmation hearings, which went on for several days and many hours of hearings. He answered over 700 questions, explaining his thought processes, judicial philosophy, and I think very credibly dispelling some of the misstatements about his record of service. Judge Alito was even forced to defend the statements of others when he was questioned about the Concerned Alumni of Princeton. That is a group that apparently Judge Alito joined when he was a member of the Armed Services because he didn't agree with the way the military was treated on the Princeton campus. As a result, some of the Democratic Senators tried to diminish Judge Alito. The Wall Street Journal had an editorial on January 12 of this year where they said they are trying to find him guilty by ``ancient association.'' Let me quote from the Wall Street Journal editorial page of that date. They can't touch him on credentials or his mastery of jurisprudence, so they're trying to get him on guilt by ancient association. Senators Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer did their best yesterday to imply that Judge Alito was racist and sexist by linking the nominee with the views of some members of Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which back in the 1970s and 1980s took issue with university policies on coeducation and affirmative action. Of course, Judge Alito said he didn't agree with any of that. He was concerned about fair access for our military recruiters on campus. The closing lines in the Wall Street Journal editorial stated: As for Judge Alito's prospects, if this irrelevant arcania is the most his opponents have, he can start measuring his new judicial robes. Another comment made by some members of the Judiciary Committee is they don't have the assurance that the judge firmly believes in precedent. They criticize him for apparently having an open mind. What some Senators choose to do is not recognize that there are times where precedent should be overturned such as the Court overruling Plessy v. Ferguson and Korematsu v. United States. Also, as time changes and our country develops, the case law that comes before the Supreme Court also changes, to recognize the advances in technology and science. In Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun recognized that advancements in medical science will impact the trimester standard for when the State's interest in life begins. As constitutional jurisprudence moves forward, Judge Alito, with his understanding that stare decisis is not an ``inexorable command,'' makes a great deal of sense. We have seen that throughout the history of our country. There were some comments made during his confirmation process by the groups objecting to the nomination of Judge Alito that they disagree with the conclusion he reached after an independent review of the facts of a particular case. While these groups, and all Americans, have an important role in a free society and deserve to state their view, they also in some cases are distorting the proper role of a judge. On the bench, Judge Alito has not been a partisan activist. To the contrary, there have been no substantive claims that any litigant before Judge Alito did not have a fair and impartial hearing of their case. Factors whether a President should be overturned, or modified--there are many factors, such as the nature of the original decision, whether that precedent has been changed, or there is a desire on the part of the people who are the owners of the Government to change it. Another factor could be whether the precedent has been undermined by subsequent decisions or new facts or new laws. Court decisions have been changed over the years because they have proven to be unworkable. The Court has overruled many decisions. Of course, Brown v. Board of Education overruling Plessy v. Ferguson is probably the prime example and illustrates that no precedent is untouchable. The Court should not be required to stick to bad law--in that case, separate but equal. Judges do not run for office. They cannot and should not make campaign promises that are, in fact, prohibited. They are prohibited from doing so by the Code of Judicial Conduct of the American Bar Association. They also should not be judged on the basis of statements they made when working for elected public servants in the legislative or executive branches of Government. They should be judged by their record of service. Again, with Judge Alito, we see a person with 15 years of judicial experience. We have seen, in too many cases, with the lifetime- appointed Federal judges, a complete disregard for the will of the people and their elected representatives who are supposed to be making the laws reflecting the will and the values of the people in particular States or maybe the Nation in our representative democracy. People wonder: Why do we care about the activist judges? Why does judicial philosophy matter? I will go through recent decisions by activist judges who forget their role is to apply the law, not invent the law. In California, certain counties thought it was a good idea to have children in schools say the Pledge of Allegiance. When I was Governor of Virginia, we passed such a law. But someone out there in the Ninth Circuit thought, no, we cannot have the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools in California because of the words ``under God.'' That is an example of judges completely ignoring the will of the people in those regions of California and striking down the Pledge of Allegiance because of the words ``under God.'' This is a ludicrous decision. We also see judges ignoring the will of the people in a variety of other ways. They struck down some laws in Virginia within the last 2 years because of international standards. Friends, colleagues, we make the laws. We represent the people of this country. It is our Constitution. It is not the U.N. constitution or various conglomerations or what confederations of other countries may think our laws should be. The laws are made by the people of this country. A continuing debate has to do with parental notification. People in Virginia, when I was Governor, and other States thought, if an unwed minor daughter is going through the surgery, the trauma of an abortion, and is 17 years old or younger, a parent ought to be involved. After all, if a child is going to get a tattoo or their ears pierced, they need parental consent. So the laws are passed by various States, there is one in contention dealing with New Hampshire. Federal judges, ignoring the will of the people in various States, strike down and allow those laws to be overturned. Last year, in the summer, the Supreme Court got involved in a case that created a great deal of concern because the city of New London, CT, the city council, acting akin to commissars, decided they were going to take people's homes, the American dream, and condemn those homes, take them not for a school, not for a road or any such public purpose, but rather they wanted to derive more tax revenue off of that property. This is part of the Bill of Rights, the fifth amendment. The Supreme Court, in a very narrow decision, allowed New London, CT, in the Kelo case, to take away people's homes. This is an example of Supreme Court Justices, Federal judges, selected and serving for life, amending our Bill of Rights, the Constitution--the Bill of Rights is the most important part of all the Constitution--by judicial decree. That is wrong. This is why it is important we have men and women serving on the Federal bench that understand their role is to apply the law and not take away our God-given rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and in our Constitution. I met with Judge Alito in my office and discussed with him my concerns about this troubling trend of judges who ignore the will of the people and start inventing laws themselves. I was actually very encouraged by his scholarship, his knowledge, and what I feel was a very genuine, sincere understanding that we need a respectful, restrained judiciary. And also his ability to cite examples from his very distinguished career of cases where he was presented with decisions where he put aside his personal view and followed the law. I asked: What do you do if you do not like a law? He said: You have to apply the law, but it may be appropriate after the decision is made, for a judge or panel of judges to communicate with the legislature and advise them they may wish to revisit a certain issue. However, when it came to issuing a decision, he felt very strongly that judges would follow their duty and should incorporate the law as written. Another quality of Judge Alito is his deep knowledge of the law and his sincere and deep commitment of being a student of our Constitution. When I asked Judge Alito about his role, his view of the role of the State to pass laws, he gave a thoughtful answer. He had a considered analysis of the dormant commerce clause. It was similar to being back in law school, learning some of these things again. His answer shows most importantly a deep understanding not only of the Constitution but also a commitment to the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded, that Government power should remain closest to the people. In our system of government, it is essential the people in the States be free to experiment in public policy and that Washington, the Federal Government, should not dictate policy through the use of Federal funds in areas reserved to the States or to the people. Opponents of this nomination have referenced half a dozen cases out of the more than 1,500 he has been involved in while serving on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The fact is, no matter how Judge Alito answered the questions posed to him, his detractors would continue to oppose his nomination. On the particularly important charge that he favors an expansive view of the Executive power, Judge Alito reiterated his view that no branch of Government has more power and that no person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law; no person in this country is beneath the law. Aside from this very unambiguous answer, one can point to a litany of cases where Judge Alito came down against the authority of the Government, or for the little guy as some people like to call it. Another criticism of this nomination has been that Judge Alito, if confirmed, will replace a moderate on the Court, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Sandra Day O'Connor by the way, in Kelo v. New London, CT, ``commissar taking of homes'' case, ruled on the side of the Constitution, so there will be no change there. We will need to get another Justice if the States are not able to rein in such takings of homes. Justice O'Connor is a person for whom I have a great deal of respect. She served with great distinction on the Court for many years and has a compelling, interesting life story. The fact that President Reagan appointed her as the first woman on the Supreme Court of the United States as a pioneer in so many ways has been an inspiration to many young people, regardless of gender. Particularly many young women who think, There is a future for me in the law. We have seen a great increase in the number of young women interested in studying in our law schools. They will say that we have to have someone who has the exact same philosophy as whoever was being replaced. We ought to remember the Founders, in drafting article III of the Constitution that creates the Supreme Court, provides no requirement there must be an ideological balance on the Court. For over 200 years, the Senate has respected the prerogative of the President and performed their advice-and-consent function and ultimately voted for qualified judges, despite their political orientation. So, therefore, let me conclude in this statement to my colleagues that if you look at Judge Alito's 15 years of exemplary judicial experience, his incredible, well-reasoned answers in the confirmation hearings. If you look at this individual, who has the qualifications, the judicial philosophy, the knowledge of the law, the respect for the law and, indeed, the respect for the people, the owners of this Government, and those of us in the Senate and the House of Representatives, and other bodies, Judge Alito is a perfect person to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote affirmatively for Judge Alito to serve this country on the Supreme Court. I thank you for your attention, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to salute the outstanding ambassadors for our enduring principles of freedom, justice, and individual rights--our brave men and women in uniform who show the heart of America by their good deeds. As the Iraqi people slowly count the ballots from their historic parliamentary election, we are reminded once again of America's far- reaching power to be a force for good in this world. Over the past 2\1/ 2\ years, our brave soldiers have fought courageously and nobly sacrificed to extend the sphere of liberty into what was--up until their arrival--one of the darkest, most despotic alleys on Earth. Their heroic work has helped deliver a new free and just country into the family of nations. We here at home watch the developments in Iraq with a feeling of pride. We are proud of our troops who have borne so much to advance the cause of freedom. We are proud of the Iraqi people, who risked their own lives to cast ballots three times this year for a better future. And we are proud of the heritage of our country--from the American Revolutionary secession from the British monarchy to the Second World War against fascism to the Cold War against imperial communism to today's fight against global terrorists, America has been the shining city on a hill--an ally to all men and women--on every continent, in every country--who yearn to breathe free. In addition to Iraq, we have extended our hand of friendship to the people of Pakistan. A little more than 2 months ago, a devastating earthquake ripped through northern Pakistan. The toll from this tragedy is almost impossible to comprehend: 79,000 men and women lost their lives, an additional 72,000 were injured, and a total of 2.9 million people are now homeless. Last month, my wife Susan cochaired a charity event near our home in Virginia to raise money for the earthquake victims. She then joined me when I traveled to Pakistan to visit some of the victims, and the 1,200 U.S. troops who are now stationed in Pakistan to assist in the recovery. We presented a check to the Citizens Foundations charity, which will use the money to rebuild the Bagh School for Girls and other schools. When we visited a Pakistani classroom for children needing medical treatment, we saw children on the floor, singing in English, learning new words, and painting artwork as well. On the wall behind the teacher was a drawing of a green Chinook helicopter and on the side of the helicopter was a big painted smile across the length of the helicopter. That is the way these young people look at the United States. They are looking at these vessels of our military not as weapons of war but as machines that bring relief, and help. Later, Susan and I had supper with our troops there at the airfield. We told them how proud we are of their outstanding relief effort, about what great ambassadors they are, not just for the strength of America but also for the caring heart of America. Today, in Pakistan, the heart of America is needed more than ever. As international attention fades and funds dry up, millions of earthquake survivors are now facing a harsh, cold winter. In the remote Himalayan region, villages at altitudes of 5,000 to 7,000 feet will soon be covered in snow. By leaving the earthquake victims exposed to the Himalayan winter, there is the real risk of seeing perhaps hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. We should not let such deaths happen. And thankfully, avoiding this tragic scenario is in our power. Our U.S. administration has pledged over $500 million in aid, but these funds are urgently needed today and must reach the devastated people of Pakistan as soon as possible. During this holiday season, and beyond, we should continue to help Americans in Louisiana and Mississippi and extend our arms to the people of Pakistan. By saving hundreds of thousands of lives during the harsh Himalayan winter, we can transform this tragic event into a story of hope, courage and perseverance.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Today I would like to honor a great man, Mr. Carl W. Smith, a native of Wise, VA, and a resident of Charlottesville, VA, who, sadly, passed away earlier this week. Carl Smith was a truly wonderful leader for Virginia, and my wife Susan and I were deeply saddened to learn of the passing of our friend. His lovely wife Hunter and his children Carl, Stuart, and Hunter, will remain in our thoughts and prayers, as will their loved ones during this time of great sorrow. Throughout his life, Carl was a truly special, invigorating friend and remarkable, insightful leader who was always a lap ahead of everyone else. I will always appreciate his discreet advice, his impressive perspective and his strong support. And I will be forever grateful for his trusted friendship that helped me win elections to become a Delegate and, later, Governor of Virginia. Like me, Carl attended the University of Virginia, when he played football. After graduating, he served in the U.S. Army and worked as an investment banker. Just last year, Carl retired as head of AMVEST Corporation, a diversified energy and finance corporation based in Charlottesville that he founded in 1961. Throughout his successful career, Carl was the best, most loyal fan of the University of Virginia Cavaliers, and his generosity to his beloved alma mater and all those in his life was boundless. He donated millions of dollars to advance Virginia's academic, athletic and arts programs, and to support the construction and preservation of its facilities. He also served on the Board of Visitors for 8 years. Carl was known for his business savvy but also for his loyalty, his kindness and his sense of humor. Susan and I grieve with Carl's dear wife Hunter and their family over this heart-aching loss. May God continue to bless Virginia and America with people of Carl W. Smith's unflinching character.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation that is designed to honor the document allows us to all be here today. The document I am referring to is the Constitution of the United States of America, the greatest and longest lasting political document in the history of the world. Drafted in part by the great patriot Thomas Jefferson, this document sets forth both the structure of our government and the fundamental freedoms we enjoy every day. Ingenious by its simplicity, the Constitution is a living breathing document that has allowed our country to evolve from 13 colonies who banded together to win her independence from Great Britain to the most powerful Nation in the world. While this document has created a strong national government that is unrivaled in the world, it has also kept the power in the States to decide how to govern themselves. As governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia and now as United States Senator I have had the unique opportunity to experience how this ingenious system of federalism plays out in every action we take as leaders. This legislation that I am introducing today will serve to remind all Americans of the freedoms embodied in the Constitution. For many of us, it has been a long time since we have had the opportunity to sit down and actually read this historic document. By placing the headings of the articles and the amendments on the back of the dollar bill, all people will have the chance to look at the provisions. I sincerely hope that when children take a look at the reverse side of a dollar bill, they will take the time to ask their parents about what they are reading so they can gain a better understanding of our great Nation and the principals our country was founded. By looking at the order of the amendments to the constitution, students can also trace the history of our country. The amendments to the constitution embody the four pillars of a free and just society. The first of these pillars is freedom of religion, this important freedom is protected by the First Amendment which allows all people of all religions to freely practice their chosen religion without fear of government interference. The second pillar is the freedom of expression, which again is protected in the First Amendment. The third pillar is the private ownership of property. This important freedom is protected by the Fifth Amendment which limits the government's power to take private property. This freedom is also protected in the Third. The fourth Amendment which protects citizens from being forced to quarter solders in their homes and protects private property from unreasonable searches and seizures respectively. The fourth pillar is the rule of law. Protection of the rule of law runs throughout the Constitution, most notably in the Sixth Amendment which guarantees the right to a speedy trial and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which require due process of law. Looking at the remaining amendments one can trace the evolution of the Constitution and the United States from the Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting slavery, to the Fifteenth Amendment providing for the right to vote regardless of race, the Nineteenth Amendment granting women the right to vote and the Twenty Fourth Amendment prohibiting the poll tax. Throughout our history, hundreds of thousands of brave men and women have laid down their lives protecting the freedoms granted to us in the constitution. Having it been Veterans Day a few days ago, I feel it is high time that we do all we can to publicize what these freedom are that we hold so dearly. Before I yield the floor I would like to recognize the contributions of one of my constituents, Mr. Randy Wright who teaches at Liberty Middle School in Hanover, VA. Mr. Wright brought this idea to my attention several years ago and he along with his students over the years have been instrumental is providing support for this piece of legislation. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in support this legislation.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation that is designed to honor the document allows us to all be here today. The document I am referring to is the Constitution of the United States of America, the greatest and longest lasting political document in the history of the world. Drafted in part by the great patriot Thomas Jefferson, this document sets forth both the structure of our government and the fundamental freedoms we enjoy every day. Ingenious by its simplicity, the Constitution is a living breathing document that has allowed our country to evolve from 13 colonies who banded together to win her independence from Great Britain to the most powerful Nation in the world. While this document has created a strong national government that is unrivaled in the world, it has also kept the power in the States to decide how to govern themselves. As governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia and now as United States Senator I have had the unique opportunity to experience how this ingenious system of federalism plays out in every action we take as leaders. This legislation that I am introducing today will serve to remind all Americans of the freedoms embodied in the Constitution. For many of us, it has been a long time since we have had the opportunity to sit down and actually read this historic document. By placing the headings of the articles and the amendments on the back of the dollar bill, all people will have the chance to look at the provisions. I sincerely hope that when children take a look at the reverse side of a dollar bill, they will take the time to ask their parents about what they are reading so they can gain a better understanding of our great Nation and the principals our country was founded. By looking at the order of the amendments to the constitution, students can also trace the history of our country. The amendments to the constitution embody the four pillars of a free and just society. The first of these pillars is freedom of religion, this important freedom is protected by the First Amendment which allows all people of all religions to freely practice their chosen religion without fear of government interference. The second pillar is the freedom of expression, which again is protected in the First Amendment. The third pillar is the private ownership of property. This important freedom is protected by the Fifth Amendment which limits the government's power to take private property. This freedom is also protected in the Third. The fourth Amendment which protects citizens from being forced to quarter solders in their homes and protects private property from unreasonable searches and seizures respectively. The fourth pillar is the rule of law. Protection of the rule of law runs throughout the Constitution, most notably in the Sixth Amendment which guarantees the right to a speedy trial and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which require due process of law. Looking at the remaining amendments one can trace the evolution of the Constitution and the United States from the Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting slavery, to the Fifteenth Amendment providing for the right to vote regardless of race, the Nineteenth Amendment granting women the right to vote and the Twenty Fourth Amendment prohibiting the poll tax. Throughout our history, hundreds of thousands of brave men and women have laid down their lives protecting the freedoms granted to us in the constitution. Having it been Veterans Day a few days ago, I feel it is high time that we do all we can to publicize what these freedom are that we hold so dearly. Before I yield the floor I would like to recognize the contributions of one of my constituents, Mr. Randy Wright who teaches at Liberty Middle School in Hanover, VA. Mr. Wright brought this idea to my attention several years ago and he along with his students over the years have been instrumental is providing support for this piece of legislation. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in support this legislation.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, you and Senator Reid, the ranking member, have long been strong supporters of our national labs and specifically the work done at the Jefferson Lab and Brookhaven National Lab. The questions that we collectively pose relate to how we can repair the unintended damage done by this funding level. It is my understanding that the actual bill only provides funding for the Office of Science and that the Department has wide discretion to reallocate those funds among the various programs. Does the Department of Energy have the flexibility and authority to move funds around or to reprogram funding to help to alleviate situations such as this?

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, we learned last night of the passing of one of this Nation's greatest Civil Rights heroes who will always be remembered for her steadfast leadership for equal justice. When Rosa Parks peacefully refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery public bus in 1955, her solitary act of courage for the cause of equality became a defining moment in American history. It was Mrs. Parks' steady courage and unflinching character that helped set in motion changes that moved the hearts and minds of the American people. She clearly demonstrated the need for our country to live up to one of our founding principles, that all men are created equal. America is a much better place today because of the strength of this quiet seamstress from Tuskegee. My thoughts and prayers are with Mrs. Parks' family during these days of sadness. I would encourage young Americans to visit the Rosa Parks Library and Museum in Montgomery to learn about her life. It is my hope that the spirit of Rosa Parks continues to live on in America and that this Nation and its leaders never forget the important lessons about decency and equality of opportunity for all. I know that her spirit will live on in my life.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I very much respect the Senator from Oklahoma. He is a man who is a watchdog on the taxpayers' money, and so am I. I know he is very conversant on a variety of issues. It is one of those occasions I must rise in opposition to the Senator's amendment. Congress, several years ago, authorized the Defense Travel System with the aim of saving taxpayers' dollars, and that makes a great deal of sense to make sure that travel administration by the Department of Defense has greater scrutiny. In fact, as I understand it, they have found by doing it this way--and it is only being field tested; it is not fully implemented--those who are traveling at first-class and tickets being paid for where travel wasn't used. This system is actually helping save the taxpayers money and also identifying when Government workers are flying at a higher cost than they ought to. I am told that it is now used at a little bit more than half of the Department of Defense 11,000 sites by nearly 700,000 uniformed and civilian personnel. It appears, from what I have looked at, that DTS has not only met but exceeded its original objectives. It is not fully put in place. It is being field tested. As a practical matter, we would like another year or so to see it fully implemented. I am told that it has handled more than a million transactions, and it is well on its way to saving the projected $56 million a year for the American taxpayers. As to efficiency and savings, any GSA solution will strip away what are planned savings and actually increase operations costs. This is the information I have been trying to gather on this since Senator Coburn offered the amendment. It would actually increase operation costs from $40 to $60 million annually. Senator Warner used the figure of $65 million. Regardless, there would be an added cost. One thing the Senator from Oklahoma mentioned is that the Department of Defense does not actually own this software system and that what the Department of Defense, though, has done is it has appropriate license rights to the DTS software system in accordance with Federal acquisition regulations. While there are these allegations from outside parties that criticize the DTS program on the basis that the Government failed to obtain title to the DTS software, what is ignored is that the Federal acquisitions regulations provide that in the vast majority of Federal contracts, the Government does not take title, but instead it is given a license to the software. And the Department of Defense has secured appropriate license rights to all the developed software and third-party software products used by DTS. The Senator from Oklahoma stated that this contract may violate the very laws that were put on the books to try to maintain competition in contracting. I don't know whether it was an assertion or a conclusion. I respectfully disagree. The legality of the restructuring of the DTS contract has been challenged in court. From what our research has shown, no court has found that the entire restructured contract was illegal. It simply stated no part of the contract, as currently configured, has been found by any court to be illegal. Maybe it will be in the future, and we will see.

Mr. ALLEN. Let me finish and then the Senator can respond. I say to my friend from Oklahoma, I do have a great deal of respect for him. He is truly a steward of the taxpayers' money. I pride myself, also, in being a good steward of the taxpayers' dollars. I know there have been hearings on this DTS program. We need to continue to examine this issue and, in fact, a lot of others. To cut funding right now for this program would be a hasty action and, from all the information I have been able to glean, would actually increase the cost to the taxpayers. The Department of Defense does oppose this amendment. They called my office a short time ago expressing this opposition. They promised to review the GAO report as soon as possible. I do think the more prudent approach is to, of course, commend the Senator from Oklahoma for any kind of scrutiny. No spending should not be under the watchful eye of us as stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. But because of a lack of understanding on the part of the Senators on the floor and this amendment, this should continue to be studied. I will oppose this amendment and work, such as all of us, to study this issue further. I hope my colleagues will oppose the amendment.

Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the Senator from Alaska.