John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, very briefly, this is an amendment that would take $150 million out of the NASA budget. We know NASA has been increased by $1 billion over last year's budget, and we also increased this past week $1 billion in emergency funding. It is $150 million, not including the billion dollars in emergency funding over the President's request. We seek to help something that is always underfunded, and that is to help especially the southwestern States and their local law enforcement to combat criminals who are illegal aliens. There is a huge problem. They do not have the resources. So we took $150 million out of the NASA budget to put it toward programs to help combat not only illegal immigration but especially those who are here illegally and who are committing crimes. That is simply what this amendment does. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, amendment No. 3295 is to increase by $150 million the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program and offset it with a $150 million decrease in the NASA budget currently in the bill. The NASA budget was increased $150 million over the President's request in the underlying bill and then an emergency spending of an additional billion dollars which was, by the way, already from over a billion dollars more than in the bill last year. We are taking $150 million of that and putting it toward this program that is underfunded every year. It is to assist the States in prosecuting and arresting people who are here illegally who have committed crimes. This is an important piece of legislation. We don't have enough money for correctional officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens, and this amount of money, especially for the border States of the Southwest, is very important. It might be drug programs people who are here illegally are running. I was watching a program the other day that was talking about cheese heroin, something that can addict our children with one dose. Kids have died. I think there are 30 or 40 of them who have died in Texas literally with one dose. Most of that is coming from our southern border. We need to provide local law enforcement the resources to deal with aliens who are coming to this country who are dealing with the drug program. This is an important problem that we need to add extra funding to. We still have a problem with illegal immigration in securing our borders, but without a comprehensive immigration bill, we at least need to add money so we can help the States prosecute and incarcerate people who are here illegally, undocumented criminal aliens who are here illegally who are wreaking havoc on communities around the United States. I believe this is an important amendment. It is critical that we help our States, counties, local parishes, tribal, and municipal governments battle illegal immigration and keep law-breaking illegal aliens off our streets. The second amendment is an amendment that will fully fund the Adam Walsh program. We all know what the Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety Act has done. This will fund it up to the President's request. It is $7.8 million for the U.S. Marshals Service to fully implement the Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety Act. We are taking the money from the ATP program. I believe it is absolutely critical that we fully fund the Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety Act. As a father of three children, the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act is critical to keeping the children safe. It is a small amount of money, but it will bring the program up to what the President has requested. It is an important program. The advanced technology program has been something of questionable efficacy. We should take some of that money and fully fund the Adam Walsh Child Safety Act of 2006. Having briefly spoken, I can speak on it more later. I know there is other business to attend to, but I think these are both very important amendments. I hope my colleagues will support them.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside and that I may call up a couple of amendments and talk for 3 or 4 minutes on them.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I call up en bloc amendments Nos. 3294 and 3295.

Mr. ENSIGN. I appreciate her comments. The only reason I would object to a voice vote is because I have seen too many voice votes in this place and then things get dropped in conference. I would hope we could have a recorded vote. I know they take up a little more time, but I believe it is important to establish on the record that the Senate actually does support the amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN. Will the Senator from Maryland yield briefly?

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 5 minutes to make a quick statement, and then I will make a unanimous consent request, to which there will be an objection on the other side.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, let me make it clear. I support the electronic filing by Senators in the underlying bill that Senator Feinstein brought forward. There is an issue I want to raise on an amendment I wish to add to the bill. We have a problem going on in the Senate where there are anonymous outside groups who are filing ethics complaints, and they are doing it for purely political reasons. As often is the case, this can be fixed with transparency. If someone files an ethics complaint against a Senator from the outside, then they would have to disclose their donors under my amendment. Right now in the Senate, there is no such requirement for filing a complaint. The complaints do not have to be sworn, signed, or even identified, and they can be submitted by a person or an unnamed group no one will ever know. The complaints do not have to be submitted in a formal manner. They can be on a beverage napkin or written in crayon. However, this is not the case in the other Chamber. In the House of Representatives, they have very formal, rigorous requirements to file complaints. The complaints must be sworn to and filed by a Member of Congress. With no requirements in the Senate, the result is that people create shell organizations in order to register purely political complaints. Some say my amendment will prevent people from filing complaints. This is simply not true. My amendment will make the complaint process transparent and similar to the FEC process. Has there ever been a shortage of complaints at the FEC? If these complaints are being filed purely for political reasons, then we will find that out because we can see who the donors are. We need to protect this institution. We need to protect individual Senators from purely politically motivated ethics complaints that come against us. If it is done purely for partisan reasons, we need to know that, and transparency is, once again, the best way to find that out. All I am asking is for an up-or-down vote so the Senate can decide if it wants transparency. It has been said that this bill is unrelated to the electronic filing bill. I disagree. They are both about transparency. They are both about the political process. We need to have this amendment agreed to. I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 96, S. 223, under the following limitations: that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to, and that the only other amendment in order be an Ensign amendment related to transparency and disclosure, with 20 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form on the bill and the amendment to run concurrently, and that following the use or yielding back of time, that the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Ensign amendment, and that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate.

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

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Reserving the right to object, I have no objection to the underlying bill, but there is an issue that I had an amendment that I wish to add to the bill, if the Senator from California would agree. We have a problem going on in the Senate where there are outside groups that are filing ethics complaints and they are doing it for purely political reasons. I think we could fix that, at least having transparency, to where if someone files an ethics complaint against a Senator from the outside, they would have to disclose their donors. So if this is being done purely for political reasons, then we would find that out, because we could see who the donors are. We need to protect the institution. We need to protect individual Senators from purely politically motivated ethics complaints that come against us that sometimes we will have to run up legal bills and all kinds of other things. If it is done purely for partisan reasons, we need to know that, and transparency is the best way to do it. If the Senator from California would modify her unanimous consent request to reflect and to add this portion, that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 96, S. 223, under the following limitations: that the committee- reported amendment be agreed to, and that the only other amendment in order be an Ensign amendment related to transparency and disclosure, with 1 hour of debate equally divided in the usual form on the bill and the amendment to run concurrently, and that following the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Ensign amendment, and that the bill, as amended, then be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate. Would the Senator modify her request?

Mr. ENSIGN. I object to the original unanimous consent.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Yes.

Mr. ENSIGN. Reserving the right to object, the Senator is going to ask for unanimous consent on the bill?

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. Instead of raising the percentage of money that the United States pays for U.N. peacekeeping from 25 percent, the current level the last couple of years, to 27.1 percent, my amendment would strike that and keep it at 25 percent. We have read about the atrocities U.N. peacekeepers have committed across the world. There are many reforms the United Nations needs to do. When the Democrats were in control, with President Clinton, they lowered it from 31 percent to 25 percent as the percentage we would pay. I actually believe it should be lower, but it should not be raised from 25 percent to 27.1 percent. We should continue to put pressure on the United Nations to do the desperately needed reforms at the United Nations and not send the precious tax dollars the American taxpayers send to us to be wasted at the United Nations. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, an interesting economic trend is sweeping through countries around the globe. It is one that started right here in the United States, and it would be wise for us to consider some of the amazing results that are being documented internationally. More than 25 years ago, Ronald Reagan took the helm of an economy that was tanking quickly and bringing American families down with it. The economy was shrinking; inflation was in double digits; more than 7 million Americans were unemployed; and the prime interest rate was through the roof. Ronald Reagan fought for an aggressive plan to rein in non-defense government spending, provide tax relief, and eliminate unnecessary government regulation. There were many critics who argued that Reagan's plan would create greater inflation. They cried that tax relief would be paid for out of entitlements and leave the elderly and needy worse off. However, John F. Kennedy's assertion that a rising tide lifts all boats was true. As Reagan prepared to leave the presidency, spending was down, as were tax rates and inflation. Employment had climbed to record heights--there more jobs and better, higher paying jobs. Family income had been on the rise for 4 straight years. America's poor were able to climb out of poverty at the fastest rate in 10 years. It marked the longest economic peacetime expansion in history. In his farewell address to the nation in 1989, Reagan stated: Common sense told us that when you put a big tax on something, the people will produce less of it. So, we cut the people's tax rates, and the people produced more than ever before. The economy bloomed like a plant that had been cut back and could now grow quicker and stronger. Among the loudest critics of Reagan's philosophy of lower taxes and less government regulation were European countries that taxed high to offer more social services to their citizens. The tide has changed all right. Countries around the world, including those in Europe, are racing to cut their taxes. France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Russia, Germany, Poland, Ireland, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan, Vietnam, and Hong Kong. They are cutting business taxes or capital gains taxes or turning to a flat tax in the name of economic growth. A study of 86 countries last year by KPMG International showed that tax cuts attracted business investment with minimal loss of old revenue. And that loss was offset by new revenue from increased hiring and spending. Does that sound familiar? It is the economic plan that in the 1980s helped raise our Nation out of one of our worst economic situations and reach new, undiscovered heights. But instead of maintaining a tried and true economic path, the party in power is proposing to do just the opposite and raise taxes. The rest of the world is competing to lower their tax rates the fastest in order to attract businesses, jobs, investment, and wealth. But here, in the United States, Democrats want to spend more than $1 billion of the Social Security surplus, increase the national debt by $2 trillion, and raise taxes by an estimated $900 billion--the largest tax hike ever. And their plans contain no proposals to cut or eliminate wasteful spending. In a Nation where we have always thrived when given the opportunity to grow, the Democrats' plan just doesn't make sense. We need to return to the principles of Ronald Reagan--we need to trust the American people with their hard-earned money. Let them keep more of it so that they can provide for their families, save and invest for their futures, and maybe even take a chance on a business they have been dreaming about. We also need to give businesses the tools to compete in this very global economy. When countries around the world are lowering their tax rates to attract businesses, it puts us in a difficult position. Companies flock to the best environment, so higher tax rates clearly put American businesses that want to grow here at a disadvantage. It also puts our workers at a disadvantage when competing against workers all over the world. Taxing, spending and stifling opportunity have never been the answers to our economic woes. Presently, our economy is healthy and strong because of tax relief that the Republican Congress provided. But that is the past. The question now becomes, what are we going to do today? The corporate income tax rate in America is the second highest in the industrialized world. Instead of looking at ways to raise taxes, I believe this Congress should be looking at ways to make us more competitive by lowering taxes. That is the big challenge that is before us today: to keep the economy strong, to provide better- paying jobs to America. Do we raise taxes, or do we keep taxes low? Do we try to lower those taxes that are too high? I believe the answer is simple. It has been proven by history. It has been proven by John F. Kennedy and has been proven by Ronald Reagan and has been proven by George W. Bush. We need to take those lessons of history, learn from them, and expand our economic opportunities, the opportunities for jobs in America. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, are we in morning business now?

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, before the clerk reports the amendment, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 5 minutes to speak on the amendment, followed by--that my amendment be set aside and Senator Lieberman be recognized for 5 minutes to call up an amendment.

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, the history of our financial commitment to United Nations peacekeeping should be a cautionary tale. For instance, from 1988 to 1994, U.N. peacekeeping spiraled out of control as the number of operations more than tripled and costs soared from $268 million to $3.5 billion. Finally, in 1994, the Democratically controlled Congress and President Clinton enacted legislation unilaterally reducing the U.S. share of the U.N. peacekeeping budget from 31 percent to 25 percent. The annual U.S. peacekeeping bill fell from almost $1 billion to around $300 million back in 1997. With the historic Helms-Biden U.N. agreement, we managed to clear up our fair share of arrears in exchange for much needed reforms. Congress later agreed to a glidepath in our peacekeeping assessment rate, still maintaining the 25-percent cap in law but permitting higher authorized levels as we worked to achieve that goal. Last year the United States recognized our assessment at 25 percent; the same as the year before. Now in a Democratically controlled Congress, there is suddenly a push to roll back this achievement. It is estimated that for 2007, each percentage point over the cap costs U.S. taxpayers $50 million per year. There is no way the United States should pay a penny more than the 25-percent assessed contribution rate. Despite scandal after scandal, the U.N. has neglected to adopt any reforms that would address the abuse, misconduct, mismanagement, and corruption that have plagued its peacekeeping operations and the body as a whole. United Nations peacekeepers are reported to have committed such egregious crimes as the rape and forced prostitution of the women and young girls they are sent to protect, all under the protection of the blue helmet. Peacekeepers have also been accused of torturing and murdering prisoners in their efforts to smuggle gold and arms to the rebels they were charged with disarming. Tell me how these actions such as these are worth more money. The United Nations cannot even spend the billions of dollars they receive now in a manner that is above reproach. According to the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight, from the audit of $1 billion in U.N. peacekeeping contracts over a 6-year period, $298 million was subject to waste, fraud, and abuse. I rise in support of this amendment that would actually keep our assessment rate at the 25-percent rate instead of what is in the bill, raising it to 27.1 percent. I personally think we should decrease it even further, but the least we should do is keep it at the 25-percent rate. I urge adoption of the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2700.