John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. So just to summarize, this is a motion to recommit the bill back to the Appropriations Committee. It does not take away the power of the Appropriations Committee. It does not say that it cuts any one individual program. The Appropriations Committee would have the authority to be able to put its priorities within the bill. But it does say we are not going to spend more money than we spent last year. That is, very simply, what it says. We are going to freeze the level of spending to last year instead of having a 23-percent increase over last year. To reiterate, in the stimulus bill last year, tens of billions of dollars were added to these very same programs that are in this spending bill. So I believe the responsible thing to do is for us to vote on this motion and to show we are really serious about controlling the debt and the deficit in the United States of America. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, this is a committee report here. It says, ``2009 appropriations, $117 billion.'' This is the kind of fuzzy math we deal with here in Washington, DC. Last year's appropriations bill was $55 billion, it wasn't $117 billion. It is only $117 billion if you count in the money from the stimulus bill. That looks as if it is being counted here so that they can claim they are actually cutting last year's bill. This bill has a 23-percent increase over last year. What this motion to recommit says is, let's show some fiscal restraint around here and let's freeze spending to last year's level. So we want to recommit the bill back to the Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee can determine where it wants the spending to go, but it needs to be at last year's level. Every State in our country right now is--they are not freezing their budgets, they are cutting their budgets. Yet here in Washington we have an appropriations bill in front of us that increases spending by 23 percent. This is outrageous. We need to show some fiscal discipline in this case, so I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of one our Nation's most dedicated public servants. For most Americans, Ted Kennedy was an icon--part of an esteemed family that raised strong leaders and committed patriots. Much has been said since his passing of his contributions to our country and his love for his wife, children, grandchildren, and extended family. Those who eulogized him, at his funeral and on main streets across America, have done so with great admiration and respect. From my position on the opposite side of the aisle in this Chamber, I saw Senator Kennedy as every bit the legendary and tireless advocate that he was portrayed as. I may have been advocating the opposing view on many issues, but in this country we should always be able to join together to recognize someone who has--with the best intentions-- dedicated his life's work to improving opportunities. I had the privilege of working on a very significant piece of legislation with Senator Kennedy a few years ago. It was the America COMPETES Act. I was, and continue to be, passionate about making sure that our children remain competitive in this increasingly global economy. Students in Nevada aren't just competing against students in Massachusetts anymore. They are all competing against students in India, China, and around the world. If we don't give our students the tools to compete, the innovative fire and spirit that has always fueled America will be lost. Ted Kennedy understood this. We put together bipartisan legislation that was signed into law to increase investment in scientific research; strengthen educational opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics from kindergarten through graduate school; and help develop an innovation infrastructure for the 21st century. I am confident that the impact of this law will be felt for generations to come. I am also confident that Ted Kennedy's decades of service, his passion for health care and education, and his deep love for this country will inspire a new generation of public servants. When you look at the legacy of Ted Kennedy and at how he dedicated his life to service, you can't help but be moved to do more for this country. Senator Kennedy will be missed in this Chamber and in the Halls of Congress. God bless you, Senator Ted Kennedy.

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the bill Senator Dorgan and I have sponsored, the Travel Promotion Act of 2009, an important piece of legislation to create jobs in the United States. My home State of Nevada is No. 2 now in unemployment. Clark County, which is where Las Vegas is located, has one of the highest unemployment rates of any county in the United States, over 14 percent now. Jobs are something we desperately need in my home State of Nevada and obviously across the United States. Tourism, when you package it all together, is the No. 1 industry in the United States. We are one of the countries in the world that does not sell itself to the rest of the world for people to come. It seems to make sense to me that if a company advertises to bring people in, if convention authorities around this country advertise for people to come in, it would make sense for the United States of America, as a country, to advertise to bring people to the United States. As a benefit to that, everywhere in the United States can benefit. If we are advertising to come see Yosemite or the Grand Canyon or the incredible beaches we have on our east and west coasts, or the incredible changes we see in the Northeast, or places such as Lake Tahoe in my home State that we share with California, or Hawaii or the vastness of Alaska, wherever we are advertising, the incredible cities we have such as New York, Las Vegas, with culture, cuisine, and entertainment, or the history we have in Washington, DC, or the fabulous places in cities such as Chicago, when we advertise those cities, if somebody comes from overseas to visit the United States, there are many other places they will visit along the way within the United States. It will not be just one location where foreign travelers will come here to visit. There will be a ripple effect. For instance, if you are visiting the Grand Canyon, my home city of Las Vegas is the gateway to the Grand Canyon. Even though it is located in Arizona, most people go through the Grand Canyon to go to Las Vegas. If you go to Yosemite, you can go through San Francisco and the whole wine country and take a trip up through there. The one thing we know about overseas travelers is when they come to the United States, they spend about $4,500. Mr. President, $4,500 is a lot of money to kick into our economy. That money creates jobs. Those jobs that are created have a ripple effect with other jobs being created. Somebody who is employed in the tourism industry, whether it is a theme park, a restaurant, or a hotel, has to buy other products. They have to visit the dentist. A lot of them have animals and visit their local veterinarians. They buy houses which supports the construction industry. There are ripple effects. So when we are creating a job in the tourism industry, we are creating other jobs outside the tourism industry. The nice thing about the Travel Promotion Act Senator Dorgan and I have proposed is that this bill will create jobs without adding to the deficit. In fact, it will raise money for the Treasury. It will actually have a positive effect on the deficit. Of the concerns I heard when I was home over August, that is one of the biggest concerns people have--the amount of government spending. The way we do this is two things are taken into account. Right now countries that have a visa waiver program, we will charge those visitors, instead of $131 that it takes on average to have a visa, we are only going to charge them $10. But that $10 fee will go into paying for this Travel Promotion Act for us to be able to advertize. That money will be matched by the private sector. This will be run by the private sector, not by the government. So we will have experts who understand marketing who will be able to sell our country. Mr. President, this is a job-producing bill. It is going to be something that benefits all across America, and it is going to do it without hurting the deficit. It is exactly the kind of legislation we need right now. Oh, by the way, Americans are calling for us to be bipartisan, and this is a bipartisan bill. Senator Dorgan and I and many other people have worked on this legislation. I thank the majority leader, Senator Reid, from my home State, for bringing this legislation to the floor and really pushing for it. Obviously, it is important to our State because we have a tourism-driven economy in our State, but it is important to the entire country. It is not just a Nevada-specific bill; this is important to the entire country. I have a few charts here to show some of what we have seen from other countries. After 9/11, we made some changes in our immigration laws and things like that, and these are some of the headlines from around the world. This one says: ``Coming to America isn't easy.'' Another one: ``America--more hassle than it's worth?'' In London: ``Travel to America? No thanks.'' There is a perception out there that folks aren't welcome from overseas ever since 9/11. Part of the money that is going to be spent in this bill is going to say that America has the welcome mat out. We want folks to come and experience America. We want not only their tourist dollars, but we want them to come to experience America because we know from studies that anyone who comes to America has a more positive view of America, and America needs friends in the world today. We need more people thinking good things about America instead of bad things. Instead of those who want to create harm, we want to create good will, and the more visitors we get coming to the United States, the more good will we can create in the world. What this next chart shows is that there have been 58 million new visitors--international or overseas travelers. Unfortunately, we haven't gotten our share of those since the year 2000. That means there was $182 billion in lost visitor spending and almost $30 billion in tax revenues for the United States. That is not local tax revenue, that is just Federal tax revenues. Almost 250,000 fewer jobs have been created because we lost these visitors. So there is a travel gap between 2001 and 2008. This is the actual arrivals. This is what would have happened if we could have captured a small percentage of the new international travelers who are out there. Some have argued that the European Union will counter if we put a fee on travelers coming to the United States, that they will put a fee on folks going to their countries. Well, guess what, they already have those fees, as a matter of fact, everything from the Czech Republic charging $27, to Denmark, $61, up to the UK charging $100. By the way, this is the amount of money they spend on advertising in their countries--anywhere from $8 million to $89 million--and they get a return on their investment. They get a return because they know if they advertise folks will actually come. Folks have talked about this being a cost to the government. There is no cost to this bill. It actually raises money. It actually is not a cost to the taxpayer. There is $425 million in deficit reduction over the next 10 years, with as much as $4 billion minimum in new economic stimulus per year. Next, there is $321 million in new Federal tax revenue per year and about 40,000 new U.S. jobs in the first year alone. Those are jobs we can definitely use in the United States. This chart shows the return on investment. Entry/departure fee from Spain, $14. They spent $120 million in 2005. They had an increase in international arrivals by 20 percent going into their country. The UK spent $90 million and had an increase of 26 percent. You can see down the line that there is a return on investment. That is what we are saying here in using a public-private partnership. Let's have a return. Let's actually attract people to the United States. I would make the argument that the United States has more incredible places to see than any other country in the world. We have a great product to sell, we just have to sell it. We actually have to tell people why to come to the United States, show them the incredible places. These are just a few of the ads we have seen around the world. This is one from India. ``One special reason to visit India in 2009,'' it says. ``Any time is a good time to visit the Land of Taj, but there is no time like now.'' This is one of the many from Australia. I think all of us have seen ads about Australia. ``Arrived with a thousand things on our minds; departed without a care in the world.'' Another from Australia which obviously features the great diving they have. Just the visual image makes you say: I think I would like to go there. I think I would like to experience that on my next vacation. This is Ireland, a nice simple map of Ireland talking about all the various things they have, from golf and the St. Patrick's center to other places to visit in Ireland. It gives a nice visual image. Well, there are not only brochures but television advertising, the Internet, and all kinds of ways to get into a person's mind about why they would want to come and visit someplace, and all we are saying is we need to do this for the United States. There are so many incredible places we have here to visit that selling is not going to be the problem, it is just going to be making the effort. So, Mr. President, I believe this is legislation that is worth doing. Some folks have come down here to say we don't need to do this because we already have a lot of travelers coming to the United States as it is. International travel to the United States, they say, is up. Well, the problem is, when you measure international travel coming from Mexico and Canada, that may be up, but they only spend about $900 each visit when they come here. Overseas travelers spend about $4,500 each visit when they come here, and that travel is down in the United States. It is down significantly compared to the rest of the world. So this is legislation that we need to go after those overseas travelers who have money to spend. This is something that can benefit States all across America. It will benefit the Federal Treasury, and it will create jobs. There are a lot of good things about this legislation, and I think that is why you will see a good, strong bipartisan vote when the final vote tally is taken about 4:30 today. So I would encourage people to take a good, hard look at this. At a time when we need jobs--jobs, jobs, jobs--this is a bill that can help deliver some of those jobs.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we recess until 2:15 p.m. as under the previous order.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I wish to make a few concluding remarks on the Travel Promotion Act. First, I thank my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan. He and I have worked very closely, along with our staffs, who have put a lot of work into this piece of legislation that we believe is a very good for our country. It does several things. First of all, by its very nature, it is a bipartisan bill, which doesn't happen around here very often anymore. The second thing is it creates jobs. The most important thing we need to do in this country right now is to create jobs. My home State of Nevada is No. 2 in unemployment rate in the United States. We desperately need jobs. We are very dependent on tourism. This bill will help create tourism-type jobs. It will create tourism- type job for States throughout the United States. When people come to our country to visit, they may come to one State primarily, but they usually stop in several other States along the way. We are in a situation where the No. 1 industry in America, the tourism industry, has been dramatically impacted by the downturn in the economy. Tourism not only affects the people in that industry, but it affects people in all kinds of other industries that are related to it. So when you create a tourism job, you are creating jobs down the line. You are creating construction jobs, you are creating jobs when they have to go see the dentist or the local health care provider or go to the grocery store or wherever else they are going and using the money they earn to spend in the economy. Other countries around the world spend money to attract people to their countries. What we are saying with this bill is, let's advertise the United States and let's use those dollars in a way that creates jobs here in America. We know we have a great product to sell. When you have a great product to sell--the United States of America--it makes sense to sell it. It makes sense. The Presiding Officer is the Senator from Illinois, home to one of the great cities in America--Chicago. It is a great product to sell. I am from Las Vegas--a great product to sell. Our national parks are incredible products to sell. Our beaches; when the colors are changing in the Northeast--there are so many amazing places to see in America that it is a very easy product to sell. Right now, we are just not selling it. All of the other countries are advertising. We think about the times we have seen Australia advertise or other countries advertise because they want Americans to go visit their country. We want other citizens to come to America. Not only does it create jobs, but it also creates a lot of good will around the world. As my colleague, Senator Dorgan, pointed out, when people come here to the United States, they leave with a more favorable impression. Well, not a lot of people have a favorable impression of the United States these days, so we want more and more people coming here visiting, learning, seeing our sights, and interacting with our people. We are good people, and we like other people around the world. I believe this bill is going to improve the image of America around the world by the people who come visit here. Let me just conclude with this: We have a bipartisan bill that creates jobs, that doesn't hurt the deficit. This is the kind of legislation we need to pass here in the U.S. Senate, especially in these economic times when people are worried about skyrocketing deficits and debt. We have other pieces of legislation that are important to work on, but right now there is no question but to take the time out we are taking to pass a piece of legislation that we know will create jobs. This is the right thing to do. I am proud to be associated with this legislation, and I thank the majority leader, Senator Reid, for bringing it to the floor. I thank all of those who have worked on it but primarily my cosponsor and coauthor of the bill, Senator Dorgan, for his great work and great leadership on this bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, first let me thank the coauthor of this legislation, Senator Dorgan, for his leadership on recognizing how important this legislation is to our country, especially at this critical time when our country need jobs. All of us who just went back to our home States realize there are a lot of people who are truly hurting out there. It is not just people who have already lost their jobs, but there are a lot of people who are afraid they are going to lose their jobs. There are people who are afraid to invest to create jobs. I would say the number one emotion I heard during the August recess was that of fear. It is fear of what is going to happen in this country. I think Senator Dorgan eloquently put it that this bill is about jobs. It is about creating jobs without adding to the Federal debt. Another thing I heard throughout the State of Nevada is that people are very concerned about Federal spending and the deficits this year we are facing. This looming Federal debt that people believe is a threat to the future of the United States. This bipartisan bill helps create jobs without adding to the deficit. The bill is paid for through contributions from the private sector plus $10 entry fee into the United States. Countries are able to participate in what is called a visa waiver program. It is cheaper for those countries who participate in the visa waiver program because $10 is actually cheaper than if you were to get a full visa. Most countries charge more than $10 for such a program; the $10 entry fee will not deter people from coming to the United States. As a matter of fact, the money is going to let people know that the United States is open for business. I am obviously from a tourist-driven State. We spend a lot of money advertising, whether it is Las Vegas, Reno or Lake Tahoe, we spend a lot of money advertising to other places, including internationally. Nevada does a lot of advertising. The Las Vegas Convention Authority and private businesses advertise because it works. What we are saying in this bill is, let's do it as a country. Let us show how many amazing places there are to see. Let's tell the rest of the world about it. You know the old saying: If you build it they will come? We already have built it, or God built it with our natural resources we have, but you have to let them know they are welcome and it is easy to travel to the United States. That is what this legislation will do. Plus, when you tell them about the United States, it will paint a mental picture in their minds when they are thinking about where to spend their next holiday or vacation. They say: You know what, I just saw that ad. It is kind of in the back of my mind. I always wanted to go to the United States. Maybe they want to see some of our national wonders, whether it is Yosemite, Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Alaska, or Hawaii. Nevada has Lake Tahoe, one of the most beautiful Alpine lakes in the entire world. I would argue it is the most beautiful Alpine lake in the entire world. There are so many places to see that are manmade in this country. Washington, DC is one of the most incredible cities in the world. If we tell people about it, and they come and learn about our history and our democracy, they may get a better view of the people and of the Government of the United States. The statistics are clear. People who visit the United States have a much more favorable view of the United States. There are plenty of other places to see, whether it is going to see the amazing culture of New York City or some of the other amazing cities, such as Chicago. My hometown of Las Vegas is a world-class destination with some of the most amazing restaurants and entertainment on the planet. There are great beaches in California and on the East Coast. There are some of the most amazing golf destinations, whether it is Hilton Head, SC, or the Monterey Peninsula in California. The United States has some amazing places to see. If we tell people about it, they will come in greater numbers. The studies are fairly significant on this. If you spend money to bring people, they will come. And when they come, they will bring their money. Senator Dorgan talked about the average visitor who comes from overseas comes from a long ways away; not just Canada or Mexico. When they come from a long way away, they spend, on average, $4,500 in the United States. If we can attract some of those 58 million new visitors who are traveling worldwide now since the year 2000, even a small piece of that number, it is going to create tens of thousands of jobs in the United States. Who around here does not think we need jobs? The unemployment rate of Clark County, NV, which is where Las Vegas is located, is 14 percent now. Tourism, when you total it all together, is the number one industry in the United States. We ought to do something to promote it. That is why this legislation, I believe, is so important. This country is crying out for bipartisanship. This bill does not add to the deficit. That is why this bill makes so much sense at this time in our country's history. Over the next couple of days, we are going to be debating this bill. Tonight is a procedural vote to get on the bill. I believe all Senators should support it. When we get on the bill, we will have a lot more to say about it, a lot more examples of why this is good legislation. I appreciate the work that has been done. I will yield the floor to allow the Subcommittee Chairwoman to speak, Senator Klobuchar. She has done great work on this bill. We appreciate her support as well. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation that this country needs right now. Our country needs anything that is going to create jobs and not add to the deficit. I yield the floor and I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I wish to make a couple other points before the vote. Some folks have questioned why we need the Travel Promotion Act. They say that tourism will take care of itself and that this is not a role for the Federal Government. One of the reasons I remember for years why I wanted to go to Australia was because they advertised in the United States. The advertisements talked about the various places, whether it was the Great Barrier Reef, some of the sites of Sydney, Australia, or the gorgeous beaches they have. The United States and our resources here are so vast for people to come and see, I think to not tell folks of the world what we have here or to remind them of what we have is a disservice to our country. If we remind them, whether by brochures, internet advertising, television advertising, or whatever the advertising media we choose, we will attract people here. There is no question that a lot of folks would love to visit the United States. It may just take a little spark to get them to realize that is someplace they want to go. I have thought about that. Hey, let's take the kids. Let's go to America. Let's see some of the incredible sites. We have heard about the Grand Canyon. We have heard about some of the national parks. Let's go to Washington, DC, and see the Capitol, that beacon of democracy throughout the world. Let's remind folks of the types of things we have here in New York City. When people come here, not only will they bring their money and create jobs, but I believe, very importantly, people will come away from America with a different attitude about our country. They will come away talking about an America that is different than what they get told about in their news media. If you are in Europe and other places, their news media is not necessarily kind to the United States. When people come here and meet Americans, they see our places that we have and learn some of the history of our country. They come away with a different attitude. That is important today when America needs friends in the world. I believe this legislation is important not only for the jobs it will create but for America's image in the world. This legislation really is needed at this point. In 1996, we eliminated a Federal program that was basically about promoting travel to the United States. We have had private programs and we have had public programs. None of them worked very well on their own--privately, because they couldn't get the funding necessary; on a public side, it was because the government doesn't run those things very well. This is a public-private partnership that I believe can work. That is the reason I support this. It is the reason I think a public-private partnership, where some of the public funding is matched with private expertise, can bring more tourists to the United States. Senator Klobuchar mentioned that 1.6 to 1.8 million new visitors will come to the United States because of this legislation. That creates many jobs. That brings a lot of revenue. That also creates a lot more people who have visited here and will go back to their countries and talk positively about the United States. I believe in our country, and I believe in the goodness of our country. When people are exposed to that goodness, I believe they will go home and talk about the goodness of the country and the goodness of the people in the United States.

Mr. ENSIGN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. ENSIGN. My friend is correct. It is absolutely the case. It has been proven time and time again. These countries wouldn't continue to spend the money if it wasn't working. Certainly, companies wouldn't continue to spend the money if it wasn't working to bring more people, for instance, to Las Vegas. The individual companies, as well as the Convention and Visitors Authority, spend a lot of money to bring people to Las Vegas. Most Americans have heard the slogans: What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. That became a very famous slogan. But it is the sights, the sounds, the smells, everything together that attracts people to come. If tourists come to the Grand Canyon, most people will also go to California, Las Vegas, New York City or someplace else. When folks come from overseas, they usually don't just visit one place, they visit several places. If we attract people using some of the iconic places we have in the United States, other places around the country will benefit. That is why a national advertising campaign is very important for the country.

Mr. ENSIGN. Yes.

Mr. ENSIGN. Tourism is such a huge part of our economy today. For instance, somebody who cleans hotel rooms is out of a job, they don't have that money to go down to a fast-food restaurant or go to a store to buy clothes. They have to tighten their belts. Many people also work for tips. Those tips have gone down, that ripple effect has happened through the American economy today. Nevada has felt it probably more than any other. But there is no question of the ripple effect. It affects restaurants. I am a veterinarian; it affects the veterinary business. It affects dentists. It affects the construction industry. It is almost like a negative ripple effect when those jobs are being lost in the tourism industry. What we are trying to with this legislation is to create a positive ripple effect where we actually create tourism jobs that will then help to create other jobs in other sectors. So I think that is a great question on the ripple effect with the tourism industry.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I guess all time has expired.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Republican time for the next hour be allocated as follows: Senator Ensign, 30 minutes; Senator Murkowski, 20 minutes; and Senator Sessions, 10 minutes.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. The words ``Equal Justice Under Law'' are engraved in the stone above the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court. This simple phrase, ``Equal Justice Under Law,'' carries an immense amount of weight and responsibility. As a Senator tasked with the monumental responsibility of confirming a Supreme Court nominee, it is with these four words in mind that I carefully studied this Supreme Court nominee. There is no denying that Judge Sotomayor is impressive. Her qualifications, diverse experience, and personal disposition make her a worthy candidate for this nomination. The fact that this is a proud moment for our Nation has not been lost on me. This year, America has certainly filled the history books. On the tails of his historic election, President Obama has chosen to nominate the Nation's first Hispanic woman to the Supreme Court. President Obama and Judge Sotomayor have made history, but the impact they will have on future generations is so much greater. Although, as a child, Judge Sotomayor could do little more than dream. She was born in the Bronx, raised by a single mother after her father passed away when she was 9 years of age. Her mother instilled in her a deep value for education and a strong work ethic, which paid off with a full scholarship to Princeton University. She graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and went on to attend Yale Law School, where she earned her juris doctorate. She is truly an inspiration for people across our great country. Judge Sotomayor's humble upbringing is reminiscent of another recent judicial nominee, also of Hispanic heritage, who rose above his meager means in New York to attend and graduate with honors from Ivy League schools. And the similarities do not stop there. I am referring to the American success story of Miguel Estrada, an individual equally deserving of our respect. Miguel Estrada came to America as a Honduran immigrant at the age of 17. With very little English in his vocabulary, he rose to the top of the legal profession after graduating with honors from Columbia University and Harvard Law School. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and was a former Assistant Solicitor General of the United States. Miguel Estrada served in the administrations of both President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush. In 2001, President George W. Bush recognized his talent and nominated him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Unfortunately, partisan politics came into play, and Estrada's record was not judged purely on its merits. He did not receive the fair consideration that has been given to Judge Sotomayor. He never even made it as far as a confirmation vote. Miguel Estrada's nomination and expected ascension to the Supreme Court was cut short by a Democrat filibuster--as a matter of fact, seven Democrat filibusters that helped create a new standard for judicial nominees and the Senate's constitutional role of ``advise and consent.'' Had he been given the fair consideration he deserved, the Hispanic community would have another great role model in our judicial system. As I have previously stated, I am impressed by Judge Sotomayor. In our meeting, I found her very personable and easy to talk with. Unfortunately, our discussions during that meeting did little to alleviate the concerns I had upon reviewing her record and her public statements, including her testimony before the Judiciary Committee. Judge Sotomayor's record and testimony have left me with more uncertainty and doubt instead of the assurance that she has the ability to rule with a fair and impartial adherence to the rule of law. I fear that Judge Sotomayor, when seated on the Supreme Court bench, will not be a zealous advocate for ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Many of her responses to me and to my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee were troubling, not necessarily because of substance, but more due to the lack of it. I remain concerned that we just do not know who we will be getting on the Supreme Court. The inconsistencies in Judge Sotomayor's testimony, judicial record, and writings make it impossible to fully understand her commitment to how she will interpret and uphold the Constitution. This especially concerns me because a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court comes without the barriers of additional judicial review that someone has in a lower court. The restraints of precedent that she was under as a district court and circuit court judge will not apply. Even if I was to solely consider her judicial record, I cannot in good conscience dismiss her cursory treatment of cases dealing with serious and important constitutional questions. Some of her decisions have run contrary to the Constitution, were decided in opinions lacking analysis, and are consistent with liberal political thought. For example, there was her 2006 private property decision that permitted the government to take property from one developer and give it to another. And we have heard a lot about her 2008 Ricci decision, recently overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, which would have effectively allowed employers to engage in reverse discrimination, so long as their claims of their actions were motivated by a desire to avoid conflicts with favored minority groups. A majority of Justices found that Judge Sotomayor misapplied the law. Then there was her 2009 second amendment decision in Maloney v. Cuomo that would give States the power to ban firearms. The unsigned decision, joined by Judge Sotomayor, held that New York's state statute does not interfere with a fundamental right. The opinion also dismissed the argument that a complete ban violates the Second Amendment by citing Supreme Court cases from the 19th century holding that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government and not to the States. To me, the Maloney ruling is an indication that Judge Sotomayor does not view the Second Amendment as protecting a fundamental right. This is further supported by a 2004 decision in U.S. v. Sanchez- Villar in which she also joined a decision that flatly denied gun possession as a fundamental right. While that decision pre-dated Heller, the Maloney decision occurred more than six months after the Heller decision, and yet Sotomayor again dismissed the possibility that the second amendment protects a ``fundamental right.'' Once again in the decision, no analysis was given as to why. Her conclusion was that, one, the Second Amendment does not apply to the States and, two, the Second Amendment does not protect a fundamental right. Had Judge Sotomayor looked to the history of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act, and the Freedman Bureau's Act, she would have recognized--or at least she should have recognized--that they were enacted to ensure that the constitutional rights of freedmen were protected against State infringement. This is especially true as it relates to the Second Amendment and the practice by States and localities that were outlawing the ownership of firearms by newly freed slaves. Given this information, coupled with Judge Sotomayor's record, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that she has a bias against firearms and our constitutional right to ``keep and bear arms.'' Should we expect her to rule differently when the Supreme Court takes up the Maloney case or the Ninth or Seventh Circuit cases that deal with the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the States? Judge Sotomayor appears to believe that the Second Amendment is not an individual, fundamental right. It is, in fact, a fundamental right granted to all Americans and enshrined in our Constitution. The Second Amendment is the cornerstone of our Bill of Rights. If it is chipped away or infringed upon in any way, our freedom and liberties will be compromised. It is my fear that Judge Sotomayor will threaten Second Amendment rights for all Americans. This was not the first time her bias and propensity to rule with purpose-driven results impacted her judicial decision making. Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor's record and testimony provides more uncertainty and doubt than a declaration to her ability to rule with a fair and impartial adherence to the rule of law. Presidents, Senators, judges, and Supreme Court Justices alike take an oath to preserve, to protect, and to defend the Constitution. It is our most solemn duty. Judges are expected to be tethered to the Constitution and impartially apply the law to the facts. The American people overwhelmingly reject the notion that unelected judges should set policy or allow their social, moral, or political views to influence the outcome of cases. I worry about her prior dismissal of the goal of judicial impartiality as an unattainable ``aspiration.'' And I disagree that embracing her biases is a good thing. Judge Sotomayor's views on international law are also troubling. While the use or consideration of foreign and international law in judicial decision-making is not new and remains a subject of controversy, Judge Sotomayor appears to embrace using international standards or laws to decide U.S. constitutional questions. I asked Judge Sotomayor about her thoughts on the use of foreign law. Her answers on this worrisome issue only confirm a contradictory position reflected in many of her public statements and an apparent endorsement of using foreign law as a source of creative ideas. During the confirmation hearings, Judge Sotomayor was asked if she agreed that ``there is no authority for a Supreme Court justice to utilize foreign law in terms of making decisions based on the Constitution or statutes.'' This was her response: Unless the statute requires you or directs you to look at foreign law . . . the answer is no. Foreign law cannot be used as a holding or a precedent or to bind or to influence the outcome of a legal decision interpreting the Constitution or American law that doesn't direct you to that law. She went on to say: I will not use foreign law to interpret the Constitution or American statutes. I will use American law, constitutional law to interpret those laws, except in the situations where American law directs a court. This seems fairly straightforward. But her answers to written questions are contradictory, saying: In limited circumstances, decisions of foreign courts can be a source of ideas informing our understanding of our own constitutional rights. To the extent that the decisions of foreign courts contain ideas that are helpful to that task, American courts may wish to consider those ideas. This was not the only time she offered support for utilizing foreign law. On April 28, 2009, Judge Sotomayor gave a speech to the ACLU of Puerto Rico entitled ``How Federal Judges Look to International and Foreign Law Under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.'' Article VI makes the Constitution and subsequent laws the ``supreme law of the land.'' In her April speech, she gave a broad defense of the practice by some American judges of looking to foreign and international law as a source of ``good ideas'' in deciding questions of American law. She stated that U.S. courts can use foreign law to ``help us understand whether our understanding of our own constitutional rights f[a]ll[s] into the mainstream of human thinking.'' Apparently, the sentiments Judge Sotomayor expressed this past April are not new. In 2007, she wrote a forward to a book on international judges, titled ``The International Judge,'' where she assumed there is value to ``learn[ing] from foreign law and the international community when interpreting our Constitution.'' I believe, and Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas agree, it is illegitimate for judges to look to foreign sources for guidance in interpreting the Constitution and laws ratified and enacted by ``We the People, of the United States.'' Judge Sotomayor has also specifically criticized Justices Scalia and Thomas for their opposition to relying on foreign law to interpret the Constitution. She has even suggested that we will lose our influence globally if we are not open to foreign and international law. While Judge Sotomayor acknowledges that judges are prohibited from treating foreign statutes or foreign court judgments as binding, she has publicly embraced their use in formulating decisions. Judge Sotomayor attempted to distinguish the ``use'' of foreign law to decide American legal questions from the act of ``considering'' foreign law by ``us[ing] the ideas of foreign courts in some of our decision-making.'' According to Sotomayor, any effort to ``outlaw the use of foreign or international law . . . would be asking American judges to . . . close their minds to good ideas.'' She further stated, ``How can you ask a person to close their ears? Ideas have no boundaries. Ideas are what set our creative juices flowing.'' I agree, good ideas are important. Aren't we fortunate that our Constitution is full of them? And our Constitution will always be the supreme law of our land. Unfortunately, we have already experienced the negative impact of so- called good ideas from foreign law and how some on the Supreme Court may be using them to erode our constitutionally protected rights. Let's take a look at the controversial 2005 Supreme Court decision of Kelo v. New London. It appears the global ``good idea'' of ``Sustainable Development'' from a U.N. Earth Summit may have influenced the majority decision to widely expand the definition of the ``Takings Clause'' and eminent domain from its original purpose--``public use'' for bridges, roads, or traditional government uses. In Kelo, I believe the Court incorrectly ruled against the private property owners, allowing the City of New London, CT, to transfer the private property from long-time homeowners to a private developer for what the city considered a greater ``public purpose,'' instead of public use to increase the city's tax base. Again, I believe this is a troubling interpretation of the Constitution, and the Kelo decision suggests the danger of allowing international or foreign good ideas to impact interpretation of U.S. constitutional questions. I further fear that she may be less restrained by the text of the Constitution and more inclined to embrace judicial activism. Throughout her hearing, Judge Sotomayor insisted her judicial philosophy was, ``fidelity to the rule of law,'' and that judges are required to defer to the policy choices made by Congress. Unfortunately, she declined to explain how she would apply that principle in practical terms. When asked how her commitment to the ``rule of law'' would guide her judgment on whether the Second Amendment protected a fundamental constitutional right against encroachments from States and local governments, Judge Sotomayor declined to answer other than to vaguely commit to look at the Supreme Court's prior decisions. And when asked whether she views the Constitution as a ``living, breathing, evolving document,'' Judge Sotomayor professed that the Constitution ``is immutable'' and ``has not changed except by amendment.'' Yet, once again, her own responses to Senators' questions adopt a strikingly different tone. When asked to distinguish between judicial decisions that apply a broadly-written statute to specific circumstances based on a judge's view of ``common sense'' and a legislative act that endorses and codifies a court's decisions, Judge Sotomayor argued that a court's action--with precisely the same practical effect as the action of the legislature--does not amount to ``making law'' solely because it is a judicial act. If, as her written answers argue, Judge Sotomayor believes judges cannot make law solely because they are judges, her repeated disavowals of judicial law-making while sitting before TV cameras are essentially meaningless. In conclusion, when thinking back on the phrasing engraved in marble above the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court, ``Equal Justice Under Law,'' Judge Sotomayor's record and testimony provide uncertainty and doubt that she will rule with a fair and impartial adherence to the rule of law. Therefore, I respectfully oppose her nomination because she has given no assurances that the Second Amendment is an individual, fundamental right; she has demonstrated a propensity to rule with purpose-driven results; she has indicated a particular interest in considering international standards or laws to decide U.S. constitutional questions; and her televised testimony contradicted much of her public record and professed judicial philosophy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a brave American, William Anton. As a man of remarkable courage, strength, and conviction, Bill is receiving an extraordinary honor in the U.S. Army Ranger community by being inducted into the Ranger Hall of Fame. Bill will go down in the history books as the first Nevadan to ever receive this recognition. As the son of an Army officer, Bill found his choice to continue the family tradition quite natural, but fate was needed to further solidify his commitment. An ROTC scholarship to the University of Nebraska put Bill on the football team, but a football-ending knee injury put Bill right where he was supposed to be, as a fulltime Army cadet. Bill was soon promoted to cadet major general, making him the highest ranking ROTC cadet in the United States with over 20,000 cadets under his command. According to Bill, life has been a constant pursuit of challenging endeavors saying, ``In everything I've done, I always wanted to challenge myself to see if I could accomplish the most demanding tasks or courses--whether it was in the Army or in my academic pursuits.'' And challenge himself he did. As a defender of our Nation's freedom in the Vietnam war, Bill guided the most decorated combat Ranger unit in Vietnam, Company H, Ranger, 75th Infantry, Airborne. While Vietnam was seen as a controversial war back home, Bill's role to defend freedom was never a doubt in his mind. Bill joined the Rangers because they are one of the toughest military organizations in our Nation's history, and as a member of the Ranger Hall of Fame, history will remember Bill as one of our greatest warriors. For it was the Rangers that accomplished some of the most demanding and impossible tasks, and as a member of this elite group of soldiers, Bill exemplified their requirements of high intellect, physical strength, stamina, and bravery. Bill's own words describe him the best: ``My entire career was full of fond memories. I sought demanding assignments to challenge myself. Serving my country as a professional soldier and Officer is the highest form of public service. It is full of selfless duty and devotion to our nation--defense of our people and the supreme document--the Constitution. When we take our oath, it is to the Constitution first, then the President, and then to the other officers appointed over us. This is not lost on any Officer or soldier.'' When asked what Bill would like the world to remember about his fallen comrades, he had this to say: ``The American military fights only when diplomacy fails. We enforce the policies of our great nation. Our fallen comrades do not die in vain. They are remembered by their comrades, families, and most of the citizens of our great nation.'' We all know that Bill Anton is an extraordinary soldier, but now America will know that above all else, he is an American that truly embodies the spirit and freedom of this great Nation.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to our former colleague, Norm Coleman. Norm once said, ``It is easy to criticize, particularly in a political season. But to lead is something altogether different. The leader must live in the real world of the price that might be paid for the goal that has been.'' Norm Coleman is a leader. Norm or, more importantly, his character endured one of the most difficult elections in the history of the Senate, and came out standing taller in the eyes of many. It is not easy to lose. But it is so much harder to maintain your dignity in the face of defeat, which Norm has done. Having spent most of his life as a Democrat, Norm is what we would call a ``late bloomer.'' I also started out as a Democrat and voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976. In 1996, Norm realized that the path of the Democrat Party was paved for other people, not him. He joined the Republican Party to share in our vision to keep taxes low, reform education, and grow jobs. Norm more than adhered to this vision while in the Senate; he became a powerful voice on these issues. He also established himself as a fierce advocate for renewable energy. Norm fought for tax incentives that would strengthen the development of renewable energy across our country. He saw renewable energy as the key to greater national security and economic stimulus. Norm also introduced legislation that would wean our Nation off our dangerous reliance on Middle Eastern oil by placing a greater emphasis on increasing renewable fuel infrastructure and alternative fuel technologies. His legacy will continue to thrive as we move our country closer to energy independence, through innovation, not government handouts. Norm's leadership did not end at the shores of our Nation. He established himself as a true voice in foreign policy issues by exposing the corruption that was rife throughout the U.N.'s Oil for Food program and becoming a fierce advocate for our servicemen and women. However, all of this pales in comparison to the legacy that he will leave in Minnesota. Throughout his entire Senate career, he never lost track of the voices of his constituents and the promises he made to them on the campaign trail. His greatest legacy, perhaps, will be bringing hockey back to Minnesota. Minnesota will enjoy the fruits of his labor for years to come. I consider Norm a friend and someone whom I respect and admire. Norm, we will miss you dearly. I wish you much success in the future knowing that great things lie ahead of you.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. At the most, 10 minutes.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I thank the assistant leader from the Democratic side, the Senator from Illinois, for that courtesy. I rise today to talk about health care reform. It is critical in our system that we address the issue of cost. We have the finest quality health care system in the world, but it is too expensive for too many Americans, and because of that, many Americans are uninsured. Not only are too many Americans uninsured, for a lot of folks who have insurance, especially those who receive insurance through their employer, they probably haven't received the kind of raises they would have otherwise received simply because employers are paying more and more for their employees' health insurance and there isn't money left over to provide higher wages. It is critical for many reasons that we address the cost issue. We spend about $2 trillion a year in the United States on health care. Some people say we need to spend more, but I disagree with that. I actually think we spend plenty of money in the United States on health care, we just don't spend it in the right ways. We need to eliminate waste and the bureaucratic spending of our health care dollars and get that money to the patients. There are five different committees between the House and the Senate that are working on health care reform proposals--three in the House, two in the Senate. Let me quickly address the HELP Committee bill, which is one of the committees in the Senate that has passed a bill. The HELP bill was passed on a straight party line vote. I think the reasons for that, which I will point out, are the flaws that are in that bill. First of all, the bill is not paid for. Second of all, it is too expensive and it doesn't cover enough people, especially for the money it spends. Two hundred times in the bill the Secretary of Health and Human Services is given new powers to establish programs, parameters, appropriate moneys, and otherwise dictates the course of one-sixth of our economy--200 different times. The HELP bill is around 600 pages. If each one of those times where it detailed or gave powers to the Secretary of Health and Human Services--if that was actually written in bill form at that point, the bill would probably have been about 5,000 pages. That is how incredibly complex our health care system is and how even more complex some people are trying to make it. This bill creates 50 new offices, bureaus, commissions, programs, and bureaucracies, with 87 new government programs created in the Community Transformation Grants Program alone. The Democrats rejected by party- line vote, an amendment that would have prevented the bill from spending funds on sidewalks, parks, bike paths, and street lights. We all like those kinds of things. I actually ride bikes. I like to see bike paths and things such as that. But certainly there is not a place for that in the health care reform bill that we are trying to work out before the Senate and the House of Representatives. Furthermore, the final cost of the bill has not been released. I serve on the Finance Committee, and there is a group of bipartisan Senators trying to work together to come up with an agreement. They have not been able to do that, and the big reason for that is they are trying to finalize the details. The details are extraordinarily challenging because of how complex our health care system is today. That is why we need to take our time and get it right. You don't mess with one-sixth of the economy of the United States and get it wrong. There are no do-overs when it comes to health care reform. If we mess it up, we literally can mess up our country. We can mess up the economy of our country and potentially threaten the very existence of our system of government because we can bankrupt our country. We all know Medicare and Medicaid are threatening to bankrupt our system of government as it stands today. All that the HELP Committee bill and the other that have been introduced bills do so far, is accelerate how fast Medicare and Medicaid can bring economic collapse to the United States. I am working on other proposals. There are examples out there where things are being done right in the health care system. I have told this story to my colleagues many times. Safeway is a company that saw their health care costs skyrocketing year after year. With 200,000 employees, they were spending about $1 billion a year on health care expenses, with costs increasing every year. When a company is only making $200 million to $300 million a year, and their costs are going up 20 percent a year, you can see the writing on the wall. They were going to bankrupt their company with health care costs alone. Safeway set out on a new course and focused on four areas. They incentivized their employees through lower premiums, if they didn't smoke or they would quit smoking, they provided smoke cessation products. They focused on the area of obesity with weight management. If employees were in the proper body mass index or if they lost weight, they would give them a lower health care premium. They also focused on cholesterol and hypertension. They didn't penalize employees for having high cholesterol, but they rewarded them for keeping their cholesterol under control and they rewarded them for keeping their blood pressure under control. Rewarding healthy choices actually works. Safeway is a very good example. What happened to Safeway in the last 4 years, compared to the rest of the United States, is that Safeway has been able to lower their health care costs by 40 percent. Unfortunately, the Congressional Budget Office, which is the official scorekeeper around here and determines how much money is going to be saved, does not have a model that works with something like the Safeway program. CBO's economic models don't work that way. The bean counters around here, unfortunately, don't know how to put that in application for the rest of the country. That is unfortunate because I believe, if we used some of the same modeling Safeway did for the rest of the country, we could save huge amounts of money in our health care system. We don't have to save 40 percent, such as Safeway did. Maybe we could save 10 percent. Actually, if we don't save anything, and just freeze the rate of growth, we would be so far ahead in money that we would have plenty left over to cover the uninsured. As I said, unfortunately, the Congressional Budget Office doesn't say a model like Safeway's will save money. It is ludicrous, though, to believe that having people quit smoking and rewarding them for proper weight management wouldn't save money. I think we need to change the economic models we have around here. Not only would that save money, but it would also lead to higher quality lives. Obesity is an epidemic in the United States. Type II diabetes is rampant. Most Type II diabetics can actually reverse, or at least control their diabetes through diet and exercise. We need to encourage healthier behaviors in the United States. Instead of just having a sick care system, let's actually create a true health care system in the United States. Another thing we need to do, I believe very strongly--and this is a role for the government--we need to provide transparency on cost and quality so individuals can shop. In the bay area, a colonoscopy can cost anywhere from $800 to $8,000. Well, if the government were to provide cost and quality measurement information across the United States, people could set up plans and they could see what the various costs are. Let's say that between the $800 and the $8,0000, they might decide to pay $1,200. And then if they want the more expensive one, they have to pay the difference. If they want the less expensive one, they can get the difference. That will cause people to comparison shop and they will have the information based on cost and quality of outcomes to be able to make smart medical decisions. The one thing we don't want to do is put a bureaucrat between the doctor and the patient making those sorts of decisions. There is a precious relationship between a doctor and a patient, and we don't want the government making those kinds of decisions. I don't want to see a government-run plan that says, you know what, we are going to have rationing. That is how so many other countries around the world control their costs. They actually ration care, or there is delayed care. We have better outcomes in the United States on cancer, on cardiovascular disease, and in so many other areas than Canada, Great Britain, and other places that have government-run health care plans. I think it is critical we get together as Republicans and Democrats-- as Americans--and come up with a health care system that is lower in cost and even better in quality than we have today. The bills before some of the committees out there are not going to achieve that. I have done several telephone townhall meetings in the last couple of weeks. We have called almost 200 thousand Nevadans now and talked to many of them. They answered questions. We have gotten their feedback. The one thing that seems not quite unanimous, but from the calls we are receiving it is overwhelming, is that is people do not want a government plan. They do not want a government bureaucrat rationing their health care. Whatever plan we come up with should not include a government-run health care plan. I feel strongly about that. I think as more and more of the American people find out what the effects of a government-run plan will be, we will see a lot more opposition coming from them. I appreciate the Senator from Illinois allowing me to go first. Let's get together as Americans and do the right thing on health care. Let's join as Republicans, Democrats, and Independents across this country and have a health care system that has lower costs and better quality. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I call up my amendment at the desk and ask that it be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, in my home State of Nevada, the unemployment rate has reached 12 percent, and we are seeing unemployment continue to rise across the country. The President said the stimulus bill that was passed this year was going to keep unemployment no higher than 8.3 percent across the country. We know it is a lot higher than that everywhere now. This is not just a Nevada problem, it is a problem in every State. American families across the country are hurting, and they are hurting badly. I am offering an amendment that will help families during these tough times. 18 States have depleted their State unemployment fund and are now borrowing from the Federal unemployment fund to cover benefits. The Federal Fund is now running dangerously low. I am offering an amendment to shore up the Federal fund and help the States that have depleted their own funds. My amendment will help in a way that is fiscally responsible. My amendment is very simple. It would say we are going to use money out of the stimulus bill to replenish the Federal unemployment funds that the States are borrowing from, and we are going to do that in a way where we don't increase the deficit. My amendment does not play any phony numbers games, unlike the bill that was sent over here from the House of Representatives. The House bill says, technically, it is not increasing the deficit. The Federal Government, however, is borrowing from future generations, and will very likely forgive the States that have borrowed money, which will therefore increase the deficit. The U.S. Department of Labor estimates it will take about $7.5 billion to replenish the Federal fund for the rest of the Fiscal Year. Next year, it is projected to be at $30 billion. And we have already seen in the stimulus bill that this Congress is giving money away to the States. We will continue to borrow from future generations so we can forgive that debt the States have run up. States are not going to be able to pay back all they have borrowed, right? That is what we all assume. So let's show some fiscal responsibility and take the money needed to replenish the Federal unemployment fund, out of the stimulus. The Senator from Illinois was just on the floor talking, and I listened carefully to some of the things he was saying. He was saying that if we actually borrow less--as does the Vitter amendment, for instance--it means our deficit is going to be more. Well, that just doesn't pass the commonsense test. I know what he is saying. He is saying, basically, if we take the money away from the stimulus--in other words, we borrow less now--it is not going to help the economy as much. That was the philosophy behind the stimulus package, that by borrowing money and putting that government money into the economy, we would help the economy recover. I think it is not arguable that there are a certain amount of jobs that can be created by government spending. The reason I voted against the stimulus bill is because I thought a lot of the money was irresponsibly spent and it was going to run up the deficit. So I was looking more long term, not just short-term. The problem with continuing to borrow more and more is we have the threat of long-term economic harm. We have the threat of long-term inflation in this country, which will be devastating to this economy. Under the President's budget that was passed here in the Congress, it is projected that our national debt will double in 5 years and triple in 10 years. Think about that. Take all of the debt that was borrowed in the history of this country, from George Washington to George W. Bush, and that debt is going to be doubled in 5 years and tripled in 10 years. That is unsustainable. We have to think about future generations. States do need help to replenish their Federal unemployment insurance fund. They do need that help. We recognize that. But let's do this in a way where we are not borrowing more money from our children's future. That is really what this is about. We had the former Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, talking to our conference at lunch a couple of weeks ago. One of the things he talked about and one of his big fears is that the United States is borrowing too much money and that can be a future threat to our economy in the form of inflation. If we get to the point where other countries decide not to loan us this money anymore--if they quit buying our Treasury bills, in other words--our economy falls off a cliff. We don't want to get to that point. That is why we need to start taking small steps, which can lead to larger steps on being fiscally responsible in this country. We hear Senators from both sides of the aisle get up and talk all the time about being fiscally responsible. Yet every time we have a small proposal that shows fiscal responsibility around here, it is rejected: We can't do that now. We can't do that with this program. The stimulus program is off limits. Even though a large amount of the stimulus isn't going to be spent for a long time, it was originally supposed to help our economy this year. And the Senator from Illinois just said the economy is recovering. There are signs the recession is slowing down; however, this looks as if this is going to be a completely jobless recovery. That is not what the stimulus bill was supposed to be about. It was supposed to be about creating jobs. We had alternatives, actually, that would have created jobs, that would have helped the housing industry. The housing industry was the part of our economy that drug the rest of the economy down. So we thought we should have fixed housing before we started putting money into all these other projects and all these other government programs. That was rejected by the Democratic majority, unfortunately. I still believe we need to help the housing industry. Senator Johnny Isakson from Georgia has a good proposal--to give a $15,000 tax credit to anyone who would buy a home. In my State of Nevada, the housing market is still devastated. We have huge foreclosure rates. We have a large amount of inventory to sell out there. The housing market is starting to turn around in some of the other States, but it still has a long way to go, and we could really help the housing market. The bottom line is that we need to be more fiscally responsible to future generations. My amendment today is just taking a small step toward that. My dad used to tell me all the time when I was growing up: You have to watch the small amounts of money. He used to say: If you watch the $20 bills, the large amounts of money will take care of themselves. Well, let's start watching the small amounts. I know $7.3 billion is not a small amount of money, but around here, it is. Let's start watching at least these amounts of money so that when we are talking about the $1.8 trillion deficits, we can start taking care of that and we can start being fiscally responsible to future generations. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. I think the Vitter amendment is the right direction to go as well. This is something we need to do for future generations. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, the next amendment we are going to vote on is a very simple vote, similar to the last one. What it says is the States right now are borrowing from the Federal unemployment trust fund, and that trust fund has been depleted. There are more States that are going to need to borrow from it. It is temporarily putting back into that trust fund a little over $7 billion. Next year, there is going to be about $30 billion that is going to be needed. Does anyone around here, with the dire straits States are in, believe we will not forgive this debt for the States? That is why I am saying don't just borrow the money--even though CBO says this is deficit neutral, let's not borrow the money, which is what is going to end up happening. Let's take it out of the stimulus funds and let's be fiscally responsible around here. States need the help. Those who are unemployed need help. Let's give the help but do it in a fiscally responsible way. That is really the purpose of this amendment. I encourage all Senators to vote for it.