John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I call up amendment No. 1003.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, this is my motion that says let's not raise taxes, whether they are direct or indirect taxes, on anybody making less than $250,000. It was agreed to unanimously when the amendment was considered by the full Senate, 98 to 0. Unfortunately, it was said that it would be stripped out. We went through a whole parliamentary mess to understand that this amendment would not bring the bill down. I am hoping the managers who take this bill to conference keep this amendment in conference, so we don't raise the taxes on any family making less than $250,000 a year.

Mr. ENSIGN. That is fine.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ENSIGN. So that would be the precedent for the future, 8 to 10 corrosive amendments does not lose its privileged status.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I hate to throw a little cold water on this whole ``Kumbaya'' party we are having, but I think it is an important precedent that we determine tonight. I rise to make a parliamentary inquiry regarding the status of the budget resolution: Specifically, I rise to inquire if the resolution remains a privileged measure, notwithstanding the adoption of 10 corrosive points of order, 8 of which reach into the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, 1 of which reaches into the Veterans' Committee, and 1 into the Judiciary Committee. In the case of the Durbin amendment, No. 974, the point of order specifies, with exacting detail, what level of taxpayer must receive a tax cut in order to allow death taxes to go forward. Therefore, I put the question to the Chair: Does the pending budget resolution retain its privileged status despite these corrosive points of order having been adopted?

Mr. ENSIGN. Further parliamentary inquiry: Does that mean it would require 60 votes for passage?

Mr. ENSIGN. Further parliamentary inquiry: Is losing its privileged status at this point, does that mean it would be still fully debatable?

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I wasn't able to speak on my amendment last night. I wonder if I could have the remaining time until 11:45 to speak on the amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, my amendment which I have offered in the past, is a means testing of Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit. This Congress, under the leadership of President George W. Bush, offered seniors a brand new benefit: Prescription drug coverage. The problem with what this Congress did is that in this brand new benefit, we didn't take into account wealthier seniors who were getting a benefit from a system they never paid into. People pay taxes for Medicare Part A: Hospital coverage. That is what Part A is for. We currently means test and require seniors that have more means to pay part of the Part B premium, which covers doctors. Well, Part D is to cover prescription drugs. So what we are doing with this amendment is saying to seniors, that instead of a schoolteacher, firefighter or police officer, the middle-income folks out there having to pay higher taxes in order to pay for your prescription drugs, if you have the means, then you should pay for them. That is all this amendment does. The savings are contributed to deficit reduction. We are talking about the massive amount of debt this budget puts onto our children and our grandchildren. The Chinese, who are a big buyer of our debt, are questioning whether they want to continue to buy our debt. If that ever happens, if the Japanese, the Chinese, other sovereigns around the world, or if our own citizens quit buying our Treasury bills this country is in trouble. We should be looking at ways to lower our debt, to lower the amount of money we are borrowing from our children and grandchildren. This amendment saves about $3 billion. I realize it is small change, but that used to be a lot of money around here. In these tough economic times we should save money whenever we can. This means-testing of Medicare Part D is absolutely a place where we should start saving.

Mr. ENSIGN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. ENSIGN. The Senator is correct, that the President of the United States did include means testing as a part of his budget, means testing for Part D. He did put that toward health care. There are many of us who believe we spend plenty of money on health care in this country; we just don't spend it in the right way. We have a sick care system that pays people, doctors, and hospitals once people get sick, but we don't do pay for better behavior in this country, such as not smoking. Safeway was in here talking to us about the program they implemented, and they actually give financial incentives for healthier living. They have actually been able to lower costs, compared to the rest of the United States, by 40 percent over the last 4 years. The United States does not need to spend more money on health care. We need to better allocate the money we are spending. That is why putting the savings from Medicare Part D toward deficit reduction is the responsible way to go. Let's take the $3 billion in savings, considered a pittance around here, and put it toward deficit reduction so we do not continue to put a huge burden on our children and our grandchildren. Lastly, when the President says: Let's means test Part D, I think we should do just that. When our children and our grandchildren are saying: Let's not have any more debt, let's not be burdened with huge taxes in the future, we should listen to them as well. We have a responsibility to do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 804, an amendment to protect middle-income taxpayers from tax increases.

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Further parliamentary inquiry: That would indicate, if they had 60 votes, they could pass the budget resolution even with this amendment in it? So it actually is not fatal, it requires a higher level of support from the Senate to pass it?

Mr. ENSIGN. But it does not kill the bill? The bill still could be passed with 60 votes, passing the other hurdles that are in the way; is that not correct?

Mr. ENSIGN. I need about 10 minutes.

Mr. ENSIGN. I would need just 10 minutes. If I could just get my amendment pending then I could speak later in the day.

Mr. ENSIGN. This is the Medicare prescription Part D, means testing amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN. Would you allow me to offer it to get it pending and then I can come back later?

Mr. ENSIGN. I am not going to speak now; I just wish to get it pending at this point.

Mr. ENSIGN. That is all I want to do.

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to call up amendment No. 805.

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

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