John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I will object. I have been attempting, with the Senator in the chair right now, to attach the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus amendment to the housing bill and get a vote on it. This is an amendment that passed on the housing bill a couple months ago by a vote of 88 to 8 in a bipartisan fashion in the Senate. People say: What does this have to do with housing? Well, it has several things to do with housing. There is energy efficiency built in for new home construction. If somebody wants to upgrade their home with renewable energy products, they can do that with the help of tax credits in this amendment. It is a good amendment because this country is facing an energy crisis and gasoline prices are too high; home heating oil is too high; and natural gas has gone up by 70 percent. We need to have more renewable energy in the United States. All we have to do is have a vote on this amendment, and we could proceed with the housing bill.

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, there is no question that the whole country is facing a housing crisis and it is not just housing; it actually is leading to a liquidity problem, and my State like others has experienced difficulties. I wish to solve this problem, and improve this bill with the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus amendment----

Mr. ENSIGN. I object.

Mr. ENSIGN. In a moment. I would say in closing that people have said--we can't do this. The House of Representatives would object because it isn't ``paid for.'' Well, there is $2.4 billion in unoffset tax provisions included in the Dodd/Shelby amendment and a large amount of this does not even relate to housing. Why should the House of Representatives accept $2.4 billion worth in tax incentives not paid for and object to our clean energy tax provisions at the same time? That is an example of why there is inconsistency in objecting to our amendment being voted on. I yield for a question.

Mr. ENSIGN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so I may offer amendment No. 5020.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I am sorry to see objection has been raised. This is the amendment that we are trying to get brought up on the housing bill that passed with an 88-to-8 vote in the Senate the last time we were considering the housing bill. This is the tax bill that will extend the renewable energy tax credits for the United States. It includes solar, wind, geothermal, and many other forms of renewable energy that are so important at this time of high energy prices in the United States. It seems absolutely ridiculous to this Senator that with an amendment that passed 88 to 8 in the Senate, one of the few bipartisan actions we have taken for a long time around here, that there would be objection to adding it onto this bill. So over the next couple of days, I want to let the managers of this bill know that there are some procedural things that can go on so it is going to take them a little more time to get this bill done than they would otherwise have liked to have done. I alert them this Senator will be exercising his full rights to try to get this renewable energy tax credit put on this bill. So it is a critical piece of legislation. It is not only critical to get it done, it is critical to get it done soon, because a lot of jobs in the United States are going to be lost if these contracts cannot be let out for a lot of the projects in renewable energy across the country. There are a lot of people out there right now, whether they get their financing put together or not, who are looking to see if the Senate will extend the renewable energy tax credits. This is an amendment Senator Cantwell and I have worked on together. We are pushing this any way we can to get this thing done. I applaud her for her efforts. But it is absolutely critical that this body act at a time when we can create jobs, we can produce more green energy for the United States, and we can become less dependent on foreign sources of energy. This is a small part of the energy package but an important part of the energy package that we need to put together. We are going to continue to work on this. I see my colleague from the State of Washington, Senator Cantwell, is on the floor. I will yield the floor so she can make some comments.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I plan to ask for unanimous consent in a moment, but I would like to say a couple of words about what I am going to ask for. We had a vote in the Senate on the renewable energy bill the last time we had the housing debate. That vote was 88 to 8 in favor of the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus amendment. This was the amendment that I offered with Senator Cantwell and others. It included extensions of tax credits for solar, geothermal, fuel cells, wind, and many other forms of renewable energy. At a time when we are looking for more green energy in the United States, it is the right thing to do. This body spoke very strongly with an 88-to-8 vote. We rarely ever have votes like that around this place. I believe it is important for us to move forward with this important piece of legislation. The Democrat majority has been attempting to deal with renewable energy tax credits on other bills. While I appreciate those efforts, we have to make sure this bill is actually signed into law. It was part of the housing bill last time. I believe the housing bill has the best chance of any major piece of legislation to become law this year. The bottom line is, do we want the renewable tax credits extended and signed into law? I think this is the best vehicle we can possibly have to ensure that. Right now, the Democrat majority has been bringing to the floor--as they did a few days ago--extenders legislation that has many objectionable items that the President said he would veto. All of the tax extenders, which both sides support, were coupled up with some very objectionable items, including a $1.3 billion tax earmark. You know, we are talking about earmarks around this place; there is a $1.3 billion tax earmark in that bill. There are also other very objectionable special interest projects and tax increases that are in that bill. For these reasons the President said he would veto it. These reasons are also why the Republican minority has been objecting to what the Democrats have been trying to do. So I ask our colleagues, let's join together the way we did before in an 88-to-8 vote to extend the renewable tax credits. Let's bring more green energy to the United States. Let's bring more jobs to the United States. This is good economic policy. It is also good energy policy. We have already recognized that in the Senate. So let's join together again on this amendment, and allow this amendment to be voted on so that we can get this amendment signed into law this year. I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so that I may call up amendment No. 5020 which is filed at the desk.

Mr. ENSIGN. I am deeply disappointed. I think this is an important piece of legislation. I hope the Senator from Vermont, who is a cosponsor of the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act, will reconsider. There are serious objections to what he is trying to do, obviously, on this side. And I will say he does not have the kind of support that this amendment enjoys. This amendment was supported by a vote of 88 to 8 in the Senate. This is an amendment that should be allowed to go through. It should remain part of this bill. We should put away the partisan squabbling and get this bill done. I hope that while we are negotiating, we can make sure this amendment becomes part of the final bill.

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I rise today to warn the American people. There is a Trojan horse riding across our country and onto the Senate floor. Its creators want everyone to believe that their climate tax proposal will clean the planet while causing minimum impact on our lives. They want us to believe that everyone will live happily ever after. However, this is not a legend or a fairy tale. Hiding inside this Trojan horse is a monster of a tax increase to pay for the largest expansion of the Federal Government since FDR's New Deal. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that this proposal will cost the American taxpayer $1.2 trillion dollars in taxes over just the first 10 years of this bill. And that tax bill is only expected to rise with time. With the hefty price tag and a huge expansion of bureaucracy, the legislation actually does very little, if anything, to improve the environment. The American people cannot afford to pay for this reckless attempt at energy policy. Instead, we should let American ingenuity lead the way toward exploration of American energy, expansion of renewable energy, and increased conservation. This Climate Tax bill imposes a cap on greenhouse gas emissions that can be released into the environment by certain businesses, and this cap will gradually reduce every year until 2050. The bill creates allowances that gives companies the right to emit specific amounts of these greenhouse gases. Some of the allowances will be distributed for free to various entities. The rest of the allowances will be auctioned to the highest bidder. These allowances can then be sold, traded, or transferred. The cost incurred by businesses to obtain these allowances will be passed on to consumers, hitting low-income households the hardest. But before we talk about the revenue windfall for the Government and about the people celebrating this legislation, let's discuss the victims. First and foremost, this Climate Tax bill will cost our economy and our working families greatly. Restricting carbon dioxide emissions drives our energy supply down. Just as the bill hopes to do, the price of energy would increase. With gasoline prices already over 4 dollars a gallon and predicted to continue rising, we will all be hurting. According to the EPA, this bill will increase the price of gas by at least 53 cents a gallon. 53 cents. In my home State of Nevada, this would translate currently into about $4.68 a gallon at today's average price for regular gasoline. And gas prices aren't the only thing that will go up. Electricity bills will increase by 44 percent or more. And the cost to our overall economy would be devastating. By 2030, the annual loss to the United States' gross domestic product could reach nearly a trillion dollars. The proposal is called America's Climate Security Act, but with millions of jobs being destroyed because of this bill, not many Americans are going to be feeling secure. Many of the jobs lost are going to be in the manufacturing and mining industries that support so many of our smaller and rural communities. These valuable jobs will be forced to move overseas to countries like China and India, where companies will continue to emit greenhouse gases freely and without constraint. In case you haven't noticed, we all occupy the same big greenhouse--the planet Earth. So Americans lose their jobs, but our air on our planet is still polluted. In fact, this bill makes such a minor impact on the worldwide greenhouse gas emissions that any reduction in the United States is swallowed up by the uncontrolled and rapidly growing emissions of China, India, and other developing nations. If emissions continue to increase in these countries, the problems resulting from the global warming predicted by many scientists may still occur. It just does not make sense for us to dramatically restrict our greenhouse gas emissions if China and India do not do the same. If this bill isn't good for our families, our economy, our workers or our environment, who is it good for? The special interests and Washington lobbyists. By auctioning off carbon emission allowances and giving away even more for free, there will be more than $6 trillion dollars worth of allowances and offsets and funds to dole out to a hungry and a fierce pack of special interests. It's being called ``environmental pork,'' and the wolves are going to be ready to pounce. Hundreds of billions of dollars of that pork won't even stay here in America. Instead, it will be given away to foreign governments and companies. So do we stand by as the proponents trot around this plan that means new taxes, higher gas prices, higher electricity bills, and more bureaucracy? In fact, the only thing this proposal reduces are the jobs of hard-working Americans and our standard of living. Now, don't get me wrong, we absolutely need comprehensive energy reform. Americans are hurting at the pump and their budgets are being busted by rising cooling and heating bills. As a Nation, we are too dependent on Middle Eastern oil--a resource that is too often in the hands of brutal dictatorships. But as is often the case in our Nation's history, we must look forward to a policy that unleashes the innovative spirit of Americans, takes a commonsense approach to our challenges, and rallies everyone to the cause. We do this by encouraging conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy expansion through incentives, not by imposing unworkable mandates and impossible timelines. As we spend time debating this legislation today, crucial tax credits that encourage innovation in solar, geothermal, wind, hydropower, and other alternative energy technologies are scheduled to expire. America's energy security needs those tax credits, and Congress should act to extend them immediately without offsets. The Senate took an important step toward that objective by voting 88 to 8--to include the bipartisan Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act, which I sponsored as part of the Senate-passed housing bill. Now the House must act so we can send a bill to the President that can be signed into law as soon as possible. With exciting energy technology on the horizon, we can't afford to let these tax credits expire. In Nevada, some innovative projects have already begun harnessing the power of the Sun and to provide energy to our residents. Nevada Solar One in Boulder City is one of the largest capacity solar plants built in the world and generates enough electricity to power at least 14,000 households a year. Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas has the Nation's biggest photovoltaic solar power system, which supplies 30 percent of the energy needs at that base. Henderson has Nevada's first solar home community, where each home has a rooftop solar electric system that generates 4,400 kilowatts hours per year. And late last year, Ausra, Inc., selected Las Vegas as the site of the first U.S. manufacturing plant for solar thermal power systems. The world's largest geothermal power producer is headquartered in Reno. And Nevada is home to the only associate degree program in the Nation in energy efficiency. This is the innovative spirit that has powered American progress for centuries and will continue to drive us toward energy security for the 21st century and beyond. Renewable energy is a large part of that security, and my renewable energy bill encourages further investment in all these technological advances. I believe that energy efficiency is the key to increasing conservation of our nation's energy resources. For this reason, my bipartisan Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act contains a number of meaningful incentives to put us on the path to greater energy efficiency and independence. My bill encourages Americans to make energy efficiency improvements to their homes and businesses. This bill also encourages appliance manufacturers to produce more energy- efficient appliances. But we also need to grow America's energy supply so that our economy and our wallets are not in the hands of unpredictable and unyielding hostile nations. What can we do? We can open a new frontier in American energy. I'm talking about responsible exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, recoverable oil in deep-sea resources, opportunities with oil shale, a new era of nuclear energy, and a push toward clean coal. I know these projects are controversial. When I first started considering exploration of ANWR, I had serious concerns. Proponents and opponents have been very vocal on this issue. I sought out neutral information so that I could make an informed decision. When you really get to the bottom of the debate over ANWR, you learn a few things. Exploration of ANWR, which would not impact habitat and wildlife, would be limited to a tiny area, roughly the size of a postage stamp on a football field. With such a limited environmental impact, the benefit would be great. ANWR could generate more than 10 billion barrels of oil, enough to replace decades' worth of oil imports from Saudi Arabia. ANWR alone could save the United States $40 billion dollars annually in money now spent buying oil from overseas. It would also create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Thirteen years ago, President Clinton vetoed legislation that would have opened ANWR for exploration. If he had signed it into law instead, 1 million barrels of domestic oil would be flowing into the United States every single day. This is American oil that would create American jobs. I'd say that is a much better investment than filling the coffers of countries that despise America and use our money to further that hate. And we can access more American energy through deep-sea exploration in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. This doesn't mean we set up oil rigs on our beaches and our shores. Development would take place at least 50 miles offshore, well beyond the visibility from land and at the discretion of coastal State Governors. Again, with very limited environmental impact, the benefit would be great. There are about 8\1/2\ billion barrels of recoverable oil and 29.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas available through such deep-sea exploration. Oil shale is another promising supply of American energy that could make us more self-reliant and less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Oil shale can be mined and processed to generate oil. By far the largest deposits of oil shale in the world are found in the United States in the Green River Formation, which includes portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. If we estimate there are about 1.8 trillion barrels of oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation, it is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. It is also important to note that more than 70 percent of oil shale acreage in the Green River Formation is under federally owned land. Another positive attribute of oil shale resources. America has more than a 230-year supply also of coal. Making us the Saudi Arabia of coal. It would be irresponsible for us to ignore this valuable resource that is abundant and affordable. With the progress being made in clean coal technology, we need coal to balance our energy portfolio and make us less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Another energy supply that we can take advantage of right here on American soil is nuclear energy. America was once the leader in this technology, but we are so far behind today that if we don't make drastic changes in our policy, we may never catch up. Nuclear energy is clean and safe. It causes no air pollution, no water pollution, and no ground pollution. Nuclear energy in the United States has never caused a single injury or death. Unfortunately, only 20 percent of our electricity is coming from nuclear reactors. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it? We have several challenges when it comes to nuclear energy. President Carter outlawed nuclear recycling back in 1977. Another terrible blow came with the requirement that all radioactive byproducts be disposed of in a nuclear waste repository. Today, Britain, France, and Russia are recycling their nuclear waste, negating the need for a controversial repository, like Yucca Mountain. France has actually used nuclear power to produce 80 percent of its electricity for the last 25 years. France also manages to store all its high-level nuclear waste in a single room. On the other hand, lawmakers in the United States have been throwing billions of dollars at a mountain in Nevada that is unsafe and unfit for nuclear waste storage. And why on Earth would we bury material that could be recycled into more energy? I also believe we must create incentives for the private sector to tackle the challenge of spent fuel storage. We know that Yucca mountain is not an option. For this reason, I plan to introduce a bill to establish monetary prizes for achievements in the research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of spent fuel storage alternatives. In the past, prized competitions have been very effective ways of encouraging creative solutions to address difficult technological challenges. Technology has led to tremendous progress when it comes to nuclear energy, coal, and many other energy fronts. As ranking member of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Innovation, I have had the opportunity to delve into the latest advances, and they are exciting. I can tell you technology and innovation will be keys to overcoming our energy challenges into the future. No other single road--renewable energy, conservation, domestic supply--can get us there. But technology, together with these American energy resources, will help lift us from the control of unconscionable nations. These are the answers to our energy challenges, not some ill- conceived fantasy legislation called America's Climate Security Act, that will only drive us into greater energy insecurity. We can, however, learn from history and if we open this Trojan horse, we shouldn't be surprised to be engulfed by hidden tax hikes, $5 dollar-a- gallon gasoline, and an army of new Washington bureaucrats. Instead, let us put our resources into American ingenuity. The innovation that has always come out of our inventors, scientists, and entrepreneurs will fuel our quest for energy security in the 21st century. Ronald Reagan once said: Preservation of our environment is not liberal or conservative challenge, it's common sense. We need to come together to address this issue because it impacts every facet of our lives. I know that we can be champions of a commonsense energy policy that is environmentally responsible as well as economically responsible. Let's not look back on another 13 years and wish we had acted today. The price for inaction is clearly too steep. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. We have both had the pleasure to know and work with Joe. He was a brilliant man a Minnesota native who received three degrees, in physics, nuclear engineering, and technology and policy from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He received his law degree from Columbia University. During his lifetime, Joe did everything from working in the control room of a nuclear powerplant to serving as president of the International Nuclear Law Association. Joe was a strong supporter of nuclear energy. Throughout his life, he fought for the development of sensible, sound, and safe nuclear policies. Joe served as Nevada's lead attorney in the fight against dumping nuclear waste in Nevada. Applying his deep knowledge of the law and nuclear engineering, Joe helped the State of Nevada in our fight against Yucca Mountain.

Mr. ENSIGN. The work that Joe has accomplished during his lifetime will forever stand as a fitting testament to his character. He was an amazing lawyer, a great father, and he will be sorely missed by all. My sincere condolences go out to his family.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise in support of this resolution to recognize Cuba Solidarity Day and the struggle of the Cuban people as they continue to fight for freedom. Cuba Solidarity Day is a call for the world to join together in the fight against oppression in Cuba. It is a way of drawing attention to the injustices faced by the people of Cuba under the current regime and a way of saying that our country stands together with the Cuban people as they work toward democratic change. I believe that it is our country's duty to push for a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba. It is a travesty that, more than a decade after the Cold War ended, a brutal communist dictator is still oppressing people just miles off the coast of Florida. The people of Cuba continue to be denied the most basic human rights and the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly. It is estimated that more than 220 individuals are being held as political prisoners by the communist regime in Cuba. For the dissidents suffering prison terms, and for their families and loved ones, their suffering is real. And it is our duty as a free nation to let them know that we remember them, that they are not forgotten, and that their suffering is for a purpose. They must know that the world is watching and that we will not rest and will not tire and will keep working to support them until they are finally free. I am reminded of the story that Natan Sharansky tells about his time in the Soviet gulag, when word came that President Reagan had called the Soviet Union an ``Evil Empire.'' For the political prisoners, it was the first sign that they had not been forgotten. It was a signal to them that the leader of the world's most powerful democracy had no illusions about the true nature of that regime, that he knew of their plight and was ready to call the Soviet system what is was--evil. This resolution sends a signal to all the dissidents and political prisoners in Cuba that we have no illusions about the nature of Castro's brother's brutal regime and that we know of their plight and stand ready to help them. I truly believe there is hope. We are witnessing a remarkable time in history as freedom prevails in places that were once rife with oppression. As former Czech Republic President Vaclav Havel once said, ``without free, self-respecting, and autonomous citizens there can be no free and independent nations.'' It is now time for the world to voice its support of the Cuban people so they too can rise above the injustice of the communist regime and finally achieve the freedom and independence of a democratic nation.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to address some of the critical issues this body faces at this point in history, and to reflect on why these challenges are surmountable if we focus on working together to forge ahead. These are clearly not easy times. We are engaged in a global battle for the future of freedom. We are up against radical Islamic extremists who will do anything they can to annihilate those who do not live and believe their way. At home, we face some daunting questions when it comes to expanding opportunity for all Americans. So do we follow a proven path of tax relief? Can we change the way we educate our children to prepare them for global competition in the 21st century? How do we provide quality health care that is accessible and affordable for all of our families? How do we secure our borders and strengthen legal immigration? Can we come together to make difficult decisions about the future of entitlements before they bankrupt this country? Today, we face the task of funding the global war against Islamic extremists, providing our troops with the resources they need and prioritizing funding so we do not incur unnecessary debt. Yes, these are tough questions, with serious consequences. But more than two centuries ago, a group of patriots convened to write our Constitution, and they provided the framework for the Government in which we have the honor to serve today. They faced questions we take for granted centuries later but which could only have been resolved by incredible vision and the grace of God. As Delegate James Wilson stated: . . . we are providing a Constitution for future generations and not merely for the circumstances of the moment. How votes would be apportioned in the Congress was one of the first and most difficult questions this convention tackled. The smaller States wanted an equal vote, and the larger States, obviously, preferred a proportional vote. Some argued that the vote in the lower House should be based on taxes paid. There were threats of breaking up States to make them smaller and more manageable to govern. Decisions had to be made regarding the terms of Members of Congress. How would they be paid? What powers would be granted to the Government? Remember, this was a country that had fought its way out from under the control of a powerful monarchy. The Framers of the Constitution were incredibly aware of that fact. The Great Compromise was the measure that gave every State two Senators. But would foreigners be permitted to serve in the Congress? Where would the seat of Government be? Would officers of the Government be required to swear an oath to support the Constitution? Who would ratify the Constitution--the States or the people? To think today about the number of decisions and compromises that were made over the course of a summer is humbling. The North Carolina delegates wrote to their Governor: A very large Field presents to our view without a single Straight or eligible Road that has been trodden by the feet of Nations. Yet great thought, debate, and deliberation went into every single decision. Issues were often revisited time and again before a consensus was painstakingly reached. The Constitution was by no means thrown together quickly or haphazardly. Once decisions were ultimately made about the branches of Government and their powers, a document needed to be artfully drafted to steer the United States in 1787 as well as for generations to come. The product was nothing short of miraculous. Yet the Constitution was still not a done deal. The Constitution and its revolutionary ideas had many supporters, but it also faced fierce opposition. It was described as ``a most ridiculous piece of business'' by some. Those who stood against the Constitution honed in on people's fears. After all, this was a completely experimental government with no proven model to follow. As delegate Davie of North Carolina declared: ``It is much easier to alarm people than to inform them.'' Fortunately for this Nation the constitutionalists prevailed. To study the transformation of a blank slate of hopes and aspirations to a functioning Constitution that would guide a democracy for more than 200 years is awesome. There are several valuable lessons that I wish to share with my colleagues. It is difficult to pass legislation today with a closely divided Senate. It was painfully difficult to make decisions about forming a new government and then determine and agree on what should be included in our Constitution. To make progress even more frustrating, a subject already voted on could be reconsidered again the next day and voted on again. But these men did not let the process interfere with their progress. Their experience and their reasonableness shined during the most difficult days. They understood if they were serious about creating this Constitution, they would have to work together and consider and respect each other's differences. In the end, the Constitution was the work of those for it and those against it. They came to many compromises in order to make the final product that all could live with. John Adams described the Constitution as: If not the greatest exertion of human understanding, the greatest single effort of national deliberation that the world has ever seen. Although I serve as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, I have always prided myself on reaching across the aisle to work for the common good. For example, my home State of Nevada has greatly benefited from the work Senator Reid and I have done together on several public lands bills. He brings certain people to the table who trust him; I bring others to the table who trust me. We encourage a dialogue that has resulted in crucial legislation for our State. I imagine this is the kind of give and take that made the Constitution possible. Another important lesson from the Constitutional Convention was the understanding of the implications that our leaders' words have around the world. There were people who were completely opposed to the Constitution, but they knew how damaging their opinions could be, especially if those opinions were made overseas. Benjamin Franklin stated: The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrificed to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born and here they shall die. I think this is a critical flaw that is too often made in this body today. Our words have consequences. Today, it is much more difficult to contain what we say. Technology ensures that our enemies have access to the same television shows, Internet sites, and newspapers that our citizens have today. It is naive to think that a debate on the floor about retreating from Iraq has no impact on those plotting against us. It absolutely feeds into their strategy and their hope for our failure and our demise. We should all remember Benjamin Franklin's approach of working to contain our opinions that may be harmful to our Nation. Finally, there comes a time after a contentious issue when we must come together and move forward. Abraham White, a fierce opponent to the Constitution, gave his word that he would work to convince his constituents to submit to the new law of the land and to live in peace under it. Mr. President, 220 years ago, the States were in the midst of deciding whether they would ratify the Constitution. It was the pinnacle of a turbulent summer that left many of our delegates amazed at what they had actually achieved. George Washington called it ``little short of a miracle.'' The entire effort, from the first days of the convention to the parades that celebrated the United States and its Constitution, was in fact a miracle. Benjamin Rush, a Philadelphia physician who signed the Declaration of Independence, described the unparalleled emotion that was shared by all during the Philadelphia celebration of the Fourth of July--even greater than at any wartime victory. His description included the words: ``We have become a Nation.'' It is overwhelming to think about the work that was done hundreds of years ago so that we could continue to live and uphold the tenets of an enduring Constitution today. What a remarkable tribute to the delegates of the Convention and to the leaders whose vision led to the ratification of our Constitution. I hope we can keep in mind the many hurdles overcome in 1787 by the Constitutional Convention and the men who were gathered there and come together in drafting a real supplemental that will fund our troops, give our military leaders the tools they need, and show the Nation we are united and that we are committed together in this global war against radical Islamic extremists. We have a tremendous legacy on which to continue building. Let's commit to doing that. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask to speak in morning business.

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

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President. I wish to speak about Government barriers to competition in the aviation sector. Like many of my colleagues, I am disappointed that the Senate was unable to pass the legislation reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration last week. This is a difficult and dynamic time for the aviation industry, and it is important that Congress review and update our Nation's aviation policies. Rising ticket prices and increasing delays have made the flying experience more unpleasant for many travelers. Any inefficiencies introduced into the system only serve to exacerbate such problems. Therefore, I believe it is important that Congress reduce barriers to competition whenever possible so that the marketplace can best serve consumers and the public interest. One issue that needs to be addressed is how Government-imposed slot controls at a handful of U.S. airports effectively bar the entry of new airline competitors at those airports. These federally regulated slot controls are intended to reduce congestion-related delays; this congestion mitigation, however, comes at the expense of open competition. Once slots at an airport have been doled out to the airlines, it becomes very difficult for new entrant carriers to break into the airport because the market has essentially been closed. Airlines with limited operations at these airports face similar problems should they wish to increase their presence in an effort to compete with the larger airlines. Because the marketplace has been artificially constrained, this leads to higher ticket prices and fewer flight options for travelers. It has been proven time and again that prices go down and flight options go up when airlines are allowed to freely compete. The Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration should take every step possible to ensure that competition can flourish at these slot-controlled airports. As these agencies administer congestion programs, I hope that they will develop mechanisms that will allow for new entrants to compete with the more entrenched airlines at these airports. If they are unable to do so, it may be up to us in Congress to provide them with legislative guidance to ensure a more open marketplace. Another arbitrary barrier that Congress should address is the outdated perimeter restriction at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. For over 40 years, Federal law has restricted flights at Reagan National and delayed the arrival of competition at the airport. With Senator Boxer and Senator McCain, I introduced an amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill to revise Reagan National's outdated perimeter restriction. The American flying public has shown strong demand for more flights between the Western United States and the Washington, DC, area. Unfortunately, the perimeter rule prevents airlines from responding to that demand by largely prohibiting flights to western cities such as San Francisco, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Denver, and Seattle. Revising the Reagan National perimeter restriction would help free-market competition, directly benefiting consumers. While I am disappointed that the FAA reauthorization bill was pulled from the floor before my amendment could be considered, I will continue to work with my colleagues to find a way to revise the perimeter restriction so that air service between the West and Reagan National is increased in a market-based manner. We owe it to the American flying public to squeeze every last bit of efficiency out of our aviation system. As the Senate considers aviation issues in the future, I hope my colleagues will work together to reduce the artificial barriers to competition created by well-intentioned yet burdensome Government regulations.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ensign amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

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

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I would like to associate myself with the remarks from the junior Senator from Maryland regarding the Cardin-Ensign first-time homebuyers' tax credit amendment. We worked together as members of the House Ways & Means Committee and I was pleased to be able to work with him again on this amendment here in the Senate. The foreclosure problem is particularly acute in Nevada; in fact, we have the highest rate of foreclosures in the Nation. Last year, according to RealtyTrac.com, we had 66,316 foreclosure filings--a 215 percent increase over 2006 and a 760-percent increase over 2005. We have nearly 35,000 properties in foreclosure, which is 3.4 percent of all households. This tidal wave of economic misfortune is swamping the housing market in my home State. The amendment Senator Cardin and I offered would have helped to stabilize the market and I am disappointed that the Senate didn't have a chance to vote on it.