John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding adjournment of the Senate, all time count against the limitation under rule XXII.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Objection.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 324, S. 1003.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from Arizona for a question without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. President. Motion to Recommit Mr. President, I want to thank Senators McCain, Graham, DeMint, Sununu, and Coburn for joining me in a motion to commit that I will raise in a minute. I believe the Appropriations Committee needs to go back to the drawing board to come up with a bill that does not exceed the President's request of $94.5 billion in emergency spending. Let me be clear--I don't agree with everything in the President's request--I do believe that we should not spend above the total level of his request. The emergency supplemental appropriations bill we are considering today provides funds necessary to support our troops who are fighting to make our nation more secure. This bill provides $72 billion for defense. Much of this funding is absolutely critical. It will ensure that our troops have the safest and most up-to-date equipment, as they serve in harm's way, in order to protect each of us. That is why I support many of the provisions of this supplemental appropriations bill. I am, however, disappointed that this bill includes so much unnecessary, and in fact wasteful, spending. Spending that is not related to the emergency needs of the military. Spending that was not requested by the President, the Commander-in-Chief of our Nation's military. In my opinion, this bill abuses the spending process. Certain provisions in this bill clearly reflect that the Senate is using our troops to push wasteful spending through Congress. That is simply wrong. Congressional spending is out of control. So much spending in Washington is simply wasteful. We are running huge deficits as a result of too much spending. The American public understands all of this. What I can't understand is why Congress does not. This bill has questionable and unnecessary spending. The purpose of an ``emergency supplemental'' is to provide spending to address national emergencies. Last year's budget contained a comprehensive explanation of what constitutes an emergency. The budget states that an emergency addresses a situation that is ``necessary, essential, or vital.'' Much of the spending included in this emergency supplemental appropriations bill does not meet the budget's definition of an emergency. This bill shows that the Senate has no concept of what an ``emergency'' is. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely. We should not, in good conscience, continue to pass off trillions of dollars in debt to our children and grandchildren in order to fund extraneous nondefense spending. If we enact this bill, Congress will not be acting as good stewards. I agree with the President when he says ``taxpayer dollars should be spent wisely, or not at all.'' Sadly, there is a great deal of spending in this bill that should not be spent at all. I make a motion to recommit the underlying bill to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions that it be reported back with total net spending not to exceed $94.5 billion.

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, do I have the floor?

Mr. ENSIGN. I thank my colleague from Arizona for his question. It is important for my colleagues to understand the substance of this motion. This motion only sets the spending ceiling for this bill. We are not singling out anyone's projects with this motion. We are not stripping funding for any provision. This motion sends the bill back to the Appropriations Committee for further consideration. It preserves the rights of the committee to determine the level of spending for each program. We are not taking anything away from the committee's jurisdiction. The motion lets the committee make their decisions but within the top line number that the President called for yesterday. If the Appropriations Committee wants to fund items in this bill that were not requested by the President, they can do so. But they must pay for it. They must find offsets. That is what this motion does. We were sent here to make decisions, sometimes hard ones. This motion ensures that this Congress makes tough decisions today rather than heaping debt on to the backs of our children and grandchildren.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to help individuals, small businesses, and the uninsured afford health insurance coverage. Today, 60 percent of Americans obtain health insurance coverage through their employers. The system of employer- sponsored health insurance has long provided coverage to the vast majority of America's workers and their families. However, a significant number of Americans, particularly those who work for small businesses, lack access to coverage through the employment-based system. Employees of small businesses often go uninsured or purchase health insurance coverage on their own because continuing double-digit cost increases and burdensome state regulations are making it difficult for small employers to offer health insurance coverage. Health insurance is valuable for a number of reasons. People who are insured are protected against uncertain and high medical expenses and are more likely to receive needed and appropriate health care. Having health insurance is also associated with improved health outcomes and lower mortality, so employees with health insurance are more likely to be productive workers. Health savings accounts have become an important option for individuals and small businesses who have struggled to afford health insurance coverage. The Affordability in the Individual Market Act, also known as the AIM Act, builds on the foundation of a previously passed law that established Health Savings Accounts. These accounts allow individuals with high-deductible health insurance to set aside money, tax free, up to a set limit, to use for routine medical expenses. You can make a contribution to Health Savings Accounts or your employer can make a contribution to the account. If you don't use all the money in a year you can roll it over, tax free, to meet future expenses. Today, individuals trying to build up a nest egg for their retiree health expenses through a Health Savings Account are not able to use these funds to purchase their health insurance, except under limited circumstances. The AIM Act would expand the definition of what is considered a ``qualified medical expense'' under the Internal Revenue Code to allow individuals and families who purchase high-deductible health plans on their own to use their Health Savings Accounts to pay plan premiums. It seems completely reasonable to allow these individuals to pay high- deductible health plan premiums with Health Savings Account dollars. I ask my colleagues to consider cosponsoring this responsible, common-sense legislation.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, in closing, I realize that there are many differences in this chamber. Both Republicans and Democrats have different views on various aspects of this legislation. I believe it is absolutely critical that we move this process forward, that we allow for full debate on the Senate floor, and that we allow amendments to be debated and voted on. I encourage my colleagues to think about how we proceed, as this is a critical issue facing our country. I yield the floor, and I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for yielding.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, at the end of my remarks, I will ask to lay the pending business aside. Let me speak for a moment on the issue of immigration. We are dealing with one of the most difficult issues that we will consider this year. It is difficult from a political standpoint, and it is difficult from a policy standpoint. If we could poll all 100 Senators, we would probably have 100 different ways of solving the problem of illegal immigration. However, I think we can all agree that we need to secure our borders. This should be our number one priority, and our national security depends on it. Then, we can begin to consider other reforms. I, personally, believe it is important that we first secure all of our borders, including our Southern border, our Northern border, and our ports. Once we have secured our borders, as part of a comprehensive reform effort, we can then consider a temporary worker program. This program should require the worker to be continuously employed. It should also ensure that workers are contributing members of society, and are working to become proficient in English. In addition, this program should encourage the worker to have health care coverage. I have drafted several amendments that are different from the current underlying bill. It is important that these amendments and other legislative proposals be considered for debate. It is unfortunate that the other side is blocking the amendment process on the bill. They don't want to take some tough votes. I understand that. However, immigration reform is a critical issue facing our country. We must have a full debate in the Senate, which includes an opportunity to bring up amendments, have votes on them, and then determine how to proceed. I, and many of my colleagues, have several amendments that I believe will be very constructive to this process. Many of us want a verifiable database from which employers can search for the legal work status of their employees. It may be several years before we can actually have that database up and running. The technical problems associated with the database are not addressed in the current underlying bill. I believe some of my colleagues have offered an amendment to address this important issue, and I believe my colleagues should be heard. We also have to look at Social Security. Two of my amendments address serious issues related to Social Security. In order to qualify for full Social Security retirement benefits, a worker must work a minimum of 10 years. Under current law, individuals who work in the United States illegally, and later obtain legal employment status, can use their illegal work history to qualify for benefits. The promise of Social Security is for citizens and legal residents of the United States. It was not intended for individuals who enter our country illegally, purchase fraudulent green cards and documentation on the black market, and use them to get jobs. At a time when the solvency of our Social Security system is in question, it is wrong to allow those who have broken our laws to receive credit for their illegal work history. In addition, I have serious concerns about the proposed Totalization Agreement with Mexico and its impact on the Social Security Trust Fund. The effects of the Totalization Agreement depend on the specific terms and language included in the agreement. We do not know the terms of the agreement and will not know the exact terms until the President submits the agreement to Congress. We also don't know the exact cost of a Totalization Agreement with Mexico. I am concerned that if this agreement were to go into effect, it could severely impact the Social Security Trust Fund and threaten the retirement benefits of hard-working Americans. This issue needs to be addressed in the context of this debate. I believe there are many technical problems with this bill that must be debated on the Senate floor. These issues should be addressed out in the open so that the American people can see what is being discussed. Unfortunately, this process is not going forward because the amendment process is being blocked. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be laid aside, and that I would be allowed to offer an amendment at this point.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, to be fair, realizing that there will be objection to laying down amendments, I would speak maybe 2 or 3 minutes total.

Mr. ENSIGN. Would the Senator mind if I went for maybe 2 or 3 minutes?

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, how long will he speak?

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

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

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, the hours immediately following a disaster are critical to rescue and recovery efforts. Local law enforcement is often overburdened and staff is spread thin. As we saw in New Orleans, a lack of police presence can result in chaos and disorder which can affect the ability of first responders to conduct rescue operations. In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, volunteer first responders from throughout the country went to New Orleans and Biloxi to assist local law enforcement. Unfortunately, many of these volunteers encountered red tape that left them frustrated and idle rather than using their expertise to aid efforts. Because there is a desire from retired police officers to offer their experience and expertise in times of crisis, today, along with my colleague Senator Vitter, I will be introducing the Law Enforcement Assistance Force Act to assist local law enforcement. The Law Enforcement Assistance Force Act would allow a retired law enforcement officer, whose certifications are current, to apply to the Secretary of Homeland Security to serve in the force. These retired police officers would be detailed to Federal, State, or local government law enforcement agencies to assist in the event of a major disaster. They would work under the direct supervision of existing law enforcement agencies and would be deputized and certified to perform the duties of a law enforcement agent. The force would serve as temporary first responders to supplement local efforts in search and rescue efforts as well as in protecting public safety. These retired officers have the skills to save lives and we should empower them to do so. At a time of emergency when we should be tapping into all available resources, we cannot ignore the expertise of retired law enforcement officers who still have the ability and willingness to help those in need. We should take advantage of the fact that retired officers possess a wealth of talent and experience in dealing with emergency situations. Their assistance can save lives and contribute greatly to our communities.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I agree with the Senator from Arizona. I appreciate the manager of the bill when he said he would work with us. I wanted it on the record that the managers have committed to working with us to ensure that the intent of the bill is clear. Which is exactly what our amendment seeks to do. The bill managers have put it on the record that it is their intent. We hope in this process, as this bill moves forward, that the language that is ultimately adopted will include some kind of a definition, as we have tried to do, so that the intent of the Senate is clear. It needs to be done. We need to clean up the appropriations process we have going on in the Senate. I don't see any reason to raise a point of order. I think it would be easier to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN. If the Senator could give me 60 seconds.

Mr. ENSIGN. I would say to the Senator from Mississippi, if one Senator were to raise a point of order against the item you have described, the process laid out in this bill would be to have the entire Senate decide the matter. If the rest of the Senate believes that the additional helicopters are justifiable, then the----

Mr. ENSIGN. I will yield for a question without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, don't I have a right to be heard before the point of order is raised? I was recognized.

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, those and many other things have been put in. Sometimes good things are put in. But that is not the way the legislative process is supposed to work. We are supposed to have an open process. Senators should be able to see what is in a bill. We should provide transparency so that the public can scrutinize what is going on. The current process is broken when we are forced to enact provisions that were not in either one of the bills.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment.