John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

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

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

Mr. ENSIGN. I will give the Senate a more specific example. I will not use the exact example I had mentioned to the Senator from Mississippi previously because I don't think it is appropriate to discuss specifics like this on the Senate floor. The military tells Congress that they need certain items for the troops. They want something produced. Perhaps similar products are produced in different States so there are competing products. The military has said, We like this item made by one company, it is far superior. What is happening today is that some members, perhaps one on the Military Subcommittee on Appropriations, who represent a state with a similar product will use their influence to direct spending to products made in their own State. Even though the Pentagon says we like product A, Congress tells them they must buy product B. When the bill comes back from conference, spending gets shifted. Spending is earmarked to go to one product instead of for a product that the military said would be best for our fighting men and women. That is exactly some of the things we are trying to avoid.

Mr. ENSIGN. It would allow for the designation to continue. I would say to the Senator from Mississippi, this amendment does not affect the point of order in the bill. I apologize if I was unclear on that. This amendment affects the requirement that Senators be given a report that identifies which members have requested which earmarks. It requires that all earmarks be included in that report. That is all this amendment is doing. We want Members, if they are going to request earmarks and redirect spending, to be identified. If they want to direct spending to go to their State, they should be willing to be identified. This is a simple sunshine provision. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ENSIGN. I call up amendment No. 2980.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, let me discuss this amendment very briefly. I want to be cooperative with the managers of the bill. I know they want to wrap up this legislation. This amendment is germane. We will have a recorded vote on this particular amendment, unless the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations agrees to a voice vote that we would win. Section 103 of this bill creates a new Senate rule. Each Senator knows that we create very few new Senate rules because the rules we create are hard to change once created. The rules we make today will govern the Senate's conduct for years to come. It is important we get language right the first time so we do not have any unintended consequences. Within the proposed rule in this bill is a definition of the term ``earmark.'' Many people in my home State of Nevada have heard the phrase earmark, as people across the country have. As taxpayers, Nevadans understand some earmarks can be costly, some can be beneficial. Earmarks are often the result of Senators using their influence to require Federal agencies to spend significant dollars in their States. In some cases, earmarks are given to State or local governments or charitable or philanthropic organizations. In many cases, these earmarks are justifiable. In many cases, these earmarks have a national impact and can be justified because they meet a national purpose. Each Senator has seen the abuse of the earmark process. That is why we have offered this amendment. To clear up abuses. Our amendment provides a clear definition of what an earmark is. Our definition clarifies that earmarks are not limited solely to non-Federal entities. The definition also includes Federal entities. Spending for federal, as well as non-Federal, entities in the earmarking process can be abused. The Senator from Mississippi argued earlier it is a Senator's right to offer things that are good for their State. Senators have ideas about how money should be spent. I actually have no problem with that philosophy. I agree to a great degree with that philosophy. The problem is that such a process has been abused in too many cases. For instance, the military provides a procurement list to the Armed Services Committee that includes lists of things the military says they need. In order to benefit their state, Senators will contradict the decisions of the military and override the military's request. They ignore what is in the best interest of the military in order to benefit their State. Military is a Federal project but this bill does not provide accountability. This bill would continue to allow Senators to put their political interests before the needs of the military. That is why our amendment expands the definition of earmark to both Federal and not just non-Federal entities. That is why we should support this amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN. I yield.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to decry the failure of the United Nations to create a human rights body that deserves U.S. support. I regret that the United Nations, tasked with the solemn duty to craft a Human Rights council that would be beyond reproach, has failed in its mission. It has created a council that in its essential components has the same failings as its predecessor, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights is an embarrassment. The U.N. Secretary General admitted as much in March 2005 when he said that, ``the Commission on Human Rights suffers from declininq credlibility and professionalism, and is in major need of reform'' and that a fundamental problem is that, ``States have sought membership . . . not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others.'' Just look at the current Members of the Commission on Human Rights, the U.N.'s primary human rights body. They include some of the world's worst human rights violators, such as China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. The United States and other countries quite rightly called for the abolition of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and its replacement with a new Human Rights Council. The Secretary General endorsed the need for a smaller body that would be less likely to include countries found complicit in massive and sustained human rights abuses would be able to serve. Unfortunately, true reform was not embraced by the U.N. The Council will have 47 members instead of 53. That's far above the 20 member level proposed by the United States. And members will not be selected primarily on the basis of their commitment to human rights. In fact, there are no real criteria for membership. Even countries under Security Council sanctions for human rights violations or terrorism are not categorically excluded from membership on the Council. The protection of human rights is of fundamental value to the United States. The United States has become used to having a presence on the U.N.'s primary human rights body. The US has been a member of the commission every term since 1947, with one exception. That will no longer be the case. Due to a rotating membership on the new council, the United States would be ineligible for Human Rights Council membership every six years. So our country, which has been at the forefront of promoting human rights would periodically lose its seat but still be required to cover 22 percent of the Human Rights Council's costs. Mr. President, in my book this makes this new U.N. Council worse than the discredited U.N. Commission on Human Rights. President Bush noted in his remarks before the U.N. General Assembly in September 2005, ``When this great institution's member states choose notorious abusers of human rights to sit on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, they discredit a noble effort, and undermine the credibility of the whole organization. If member countries want the United Nations to be respected--respected and effective, they should begin by making sure it is worthy of respect.'' Mr. President, I am proud that the United States stood firm and opposed the creation of this fatally flawed Human Rights Council. Our country understood that to affirm this new council with our vote would have granted it legitimacy. The United States should be consistent. We should decline to participate on the council and fund the council for the very same reason we voted against it. Our country should not support a U.N. Human Rights Council which permits countries found complicit in sustained human rights abuses to be eligible for membership. Mr. President, I am embarrassed to say that some in the State Department are suggesting that even though we voted against the creation of the council we should take a wait-and-see approach and support it in the interim. That makes no sense. If this council had a chance to work, then the U.S. should have voted for it. Mr. President, other nations may not like what we stand for--but they know where we stand. U.S. human rights policy needs to be consistent and clear. We need to take a different wait-and-see approach. No participation and no funding until the U.N. proves that member states will not elect human rights violators.

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, just very briefly, this amendment has to do with funding for the United Nations Human Rights Council which I believe is worse than the discredited United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Members will not be selected primarily on the basis of their commitment to human rights, even countries under Security Council sanctions for human rights violations or terrorism. The United States has been a member of the United States Commission on Human Rights since 1947, with one exception. That will no longer be the case. Due to a rotating membership, the United States will be ineligible for the Human Rights Council membership every 6 years. So our country, which has been at the forefront of promoting human rights, would periodically lose its seat but still be required to cover 22 percent of the United Nations Human Rights Council cost. I am proud of the United States and how we have stood firm and opposed creation of this fatally flawed council. We need to make sure we are not funding this council, and that is exactly what our amendment does. It takes away the funding from the Human Rights Council and puts it toward border security.

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, last year when the Senate was considering the national intelligence reform bill, we adopted several recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. One of those recommendations was to hire an additional 2,000 new Custom and border protection agents each year for the next 5 years. This body agreed with the recommendation. We agreed that our national security depended on such an investment, and we enacted that recommendation into law. We are now considering a budget resolution that will determine whether Congress will keep the promise we made to the American people to protect our Nation's borders. There are many provisions in this budget that demonstrate a commitment to border security. I thank and congratulate Chairman Gregg for those provisions. But the budget that was reported out of committee includes funding for only 1,500 new agents in the coming year. My amendment would provide $153 million to ensure that we hire 2,000 new agents next year. This amendment is fully offset. Let's face it-- the threat of illegal border crossing by people who wish to kill us is very real. In order to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil, we must improve every aspect of our Nation's security. Our security is truly only as strong as our weakest link. For too long, the lack of funding for border agents has been a weak link. By funding additional agents, we protect both our southern and our often neglected northern border. This will make it harder for terrorists to enter the United States and attack us. There have been several news reports recently that I want to bring to my colleagues' attention. Last year, intelligence officials confirmed that the terrorist, Zarqawi, plans to infiltrate America through our borders. He plans to attack targets such as movie theaters, restaurants, and schools. My amendment commits the resources to make sure that this does not happen. Just last summer, in Detroit, a Lebanese national named Mahmoud Youssef Kourani, who was in the United States illegally, pled guilty in Federal court to conspiring to raise money for a recognized terrorist group. He was in the United States raising money to fund terrorists. That is outrageous. But what is equally outrageous is how he came into the United States in the first place. Kourani took advantage of our porous border. Kourani paid a Mexican consular official in Beirut $3,000 for a visa to enter Mexico. Once in Mexico, he snuck across the U.S.-Mexican border in 2001 and settled in Michigan. According to Federal prosecutors, Kourani and another member of his family are heavily involved with the same group that killed 214 marines in Beirut in 1983 and which is also responsible for bombing two U.S. Embassies. While in the United States, Kourani also helped harbor other illegal immigrants. Thankfully, he was prosecuted before he could inflict any direct harm on any American. Given how easy it is for people like Kourani to enter the United States, I believe that my amendment is imperative to our national security. My amendment does not require any additional spending. It is completely offset. This amendment is paid for. Homeland Security spending must be based on priorities. The fact that terrorists would use our borders to gain access to the United States to attack us is a real threat. So we must provide funds for Customs and border protection. Four and a half years ago it only took 19 to change the course of this country. We must do everything that we can to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil. The world has changed dramatically since 9/11 when the terrorists used our open and trusting society against us. We can not allow a repeat of that tragedy. This amendment will help those who guard our frontiers by providing the necessary, and I stress necessary, tools to ensure the safety of our citizens. I urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the strength of our economy. This might seem like a news flash, but our economy is thriving. You would not know it if you tuned in to a network newscast or read the paper, but we have much to be excited about. The U.S. economy is healthy, growing, and creating more opportunity every single day. The commonsense tax relief that we passed in the Senate and that the President signed into law have fueled our economy and driven it to new heights. Fighting for this relief wasn't a gamble--we did it because it has a proven track record. We know that lowering taxes creates more jobs, greater opportunity, and overall prosperity. It has been proven in my home State of Nevada, and we have seen the results in our Nation's economy over the last several years. Since 2003, when the tax cut went into effect, there have been almost 5 million new jobs created. Economic growth in the United States has outpaced other major industrialized countries. We have had 33 straight months of growth in our manufacturing sector. And productivity has grown strongly over the last 5 years. In January, the unemployment rate fell to the lowest monthly rate since July 2001 and lower than the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. In Nevada, the unemployment rate is at an all time low, 3.6 percent. Tax relief is working. All of this economic growth and job market expansion is a result of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 that jumpstarted our economy and fueled unprecedented growth. Another example of how tax cuts boost the economy is the Invest in the USA Act which I offered. I introduced this legislation, which was included in the JOBS Act of 2004. However, this was only a temporary, 1 year tax reduction. When meeting with corporations in the Silicon Valley, I learned that U.S. corporations pay no U.S. tax on foreign earnings invested overseas, the same as their foreign competitors. But they pay taxes on 100 percent of the foreign earnings that they want to reinvest in the United States. Obviously, this deters many U.S. companies from reinvesting their foreign earnings in the United States. That comes at a great loss to our economy. The Invest in the USA Act temporarily modified this inequity for 1 year by taxing companies at 15 percent for foreign earnings reinvested in the United States. By January 2006 when it expired, the law had encouraged companies to bring home and reinvest an additional $350 billion of foreign earnings in the United States. It raised revenues, lifted investment, and created thousands of jobs. We should take the momentum of the tax relief measures we have provided during the last several years and build on them. Our economy is growing and that is great news, but as has always been the case in the United States, we look to the future and work to make it even better. Let's make tax relief permanent and reassure American families and businesses that today's remarkable economy is just the beginning. Cutting taxes, empowering working families by letting them keep more of their income, encouraging small businesses to expand and create jobs--that is how we continue to create opportunity and success in the United States. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine had a problem with the way we did this. It was the Congressional Research Service that did this. She said it was just a spot in time. So we said, OK, let's look at the last 5 allocations historically. How have these funds been allocated? She said 29 States would benefit under her formula. That is correct, 29 States would benefit under her amendment compared to her underlying bill. But 29 States would benefit more with the Kyl amendment than with the Snowe amendment. That is according to data from the Congressional Research Service. That is what we have to go from. That is our expert source we turn to for unbiased information. The chart I have is accurate if the people at the Congressional Research Service have done their jobs right. I have no way of knowing, other than they provide pretty good information to all Senators in a nonpartisan way. To say they are inaccurate--I don't believe that is an accurate statement; I will leave it at that. To sum this up and close this argument, it is about fairness. The underlying LIHEAP program was set up a long time ago, and it was set up to be biased toward many of the northern States, especially in the Northeast. The LIHEAP formula is drafted so that when we start adding money in, then it is going to be distributed more fairly to all States for heating and cooling. This is an additional billion dollars. Those other 29 States that are not treated as fairly in the original program need to be treated more fairly. Whether you are Republican or Democrat, you should look at our charts to find out how your State is treated under the Snowe amendment versus the Kyl amendment. Senators from the 29 States should, I believe, vote against the Snowe amendment, and then support the Kyl amendment. I yield back the remainder of our time. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. ENSIGN. Reclaiming my time. I will answer the question because I can predict the future because I have seen it here enough. If you watch and learn from the past, you can predict the future. People will be going after this money and probably even more. These kinds of budget games are played all the time. I wish to make a couple of points to respond to what the Senator from Maine has talked about. First, there is $183 million in the contingency fund this year, and $100 million has been spent so far. There is $83 million left in the contingency fund. She said this is for emergencies--the contingency fund is for emergencies. Well, other than post-Katrina, every other allocation since 2004 from the contingency fund has gone to all 50 States. She says it is only for emergencies. So all 50 States must have had emergencies every year. That is not what the contingency fund has been. It has gone to every State. Our point is that the contingency fund has not been allocated fairly. I mentioned the $183 million, and there is $83 million left for this year's contingency fund. Has anybody noticed that it is all being allocated in the wintertime, so when the warmer weather States need their contingency fund, there won't be any left? That is the point. She had problems with our numbers the other day. So we redid the numbers. We looked at the last 5 allocations of the contingency fund. As it turns out, in the last 5 allocations, 29 States do worse under her formula than if you adopt the underlying Kyl amendment--29 States. We are going to be passing this chart out to every Senator. The 29 States are the red States on the chart I have here. If you see your State there in red, your Senator should be voting with myself and Senator Kyl to more fairly allocate this money that is for LIHEAP. The allocations that go out for LIHEAP are there for a very noble purpose. All we are asking is, if we are going to spend this money, let's do it fairly. For too long, the formulas have benefitted some States at the expense of others. The Senator from Maine is looking out for her State. I have no problem with her doing that. It is one of the things we are elected to do--to look out for the interests of our States--also the country, but particularly for our home State. I think the people in my State and the people in the other 28 States that are unfairly treated in the way that she has her amendment drafted deserve fair treatment, and we as Senators should fight for the people in our States. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, my preference would have been that this bill not go forward simply because I believe this legislation is not paid for. It would be different if the proponents of this legislation had truly paid for it, in other words, offset this spending. Instead of offsetting this spending, they take in the money from next year, bring it into this year and then will try next year to restore the money. If they would have said: This is the priority, let's reset our priorities and let's cut some other type of spending to pay for this, the legislation would have been a lot more acceptable. That is the reason we raised the budget point of order last week against this legislation. We lost on that budget point of order. So now it looks as though the legislation has a chance of moving forward, and we have to determine how the money is spent. Is it fair to spend it across the country, or should it benefit some States at the expense of other States? The LIHEAP program is set up with a very complex formula. It is assistance for those people who are low income, who need help with their heating oil or with air conditioning expenses--for those who live in hot States such as myself, or in Arizona, or some of the other southern States around the gulf coast. The reason people are seeking this increase is because natural gas has exploded in price. Obviously, heating oil has done the same. So there is a need out there for assistance and we don't deny that. We think there is legitimacy to meeting that need. But it is a question of how do we now disburse this money fairly to the States. Let me get back to the LIHEAP formula--how we determine how the money goes to the various States. It was set up a long time ago when this program was first put in effect that it would benefit more of the colder States. When it was set up, the first amounts of money would go in and mostly benefit those cold weather States; and then if there was more money put into the program, it would be distributed more fairly to help States that are warmer. The proponent has put forward that three- quarters of the money would go to continue to help those States that are in the colder regions of the country, and 25 percent of the money would then be distributed kind of equally across the country. That is not the way the program was intended to be set up. Additional moneys are supposed to be distributed fairly across the board. Mr. President, 28 out of the 50 States would lose under Senator Snowe's bill; 22 States would benefit. Those same 22 States benefit under the moneys that have already been spent this year--more than the other States benefit. We are not going to win the cloture vote. We fully admit that. We lost on a budget point of order, so we know we are going to lose on a cloture vote. After the cloture vote, there will be at least one amendment to change the formula so that other States are more fairly treated in this program. I believe this billion dollars should be more fairly distributed across the country. So that is what we are going to attempt to do. We hope all of the Senators will look to see whether their States benefit more under the amendment Senator Kyl and I are going to put forward or benefit under Senator Snowe. If they look from a selfish perspective to their own States, they will vote with our amendment. I think it is important when you are in the Senate to try to do what is best in the national perspective, but you also look to your State and your State's interest. When there is a pot of money out there, it is our responsibility to look to try to get our States' fair share of that money. That is what I am going to do for Nevada, and I know the Senator from Arizona is going to do that for the State of Arizona. While this cloture vote will go forward, that doesn't mean we won't have germane amendments--which our amendment is--and that we won't have germane amendments to vote on to more fairly distribute the money. How much time does the Senator need?

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, last year, we had a debate on increasing LIHEAP funding, but we had to pay for it last year. We paid for it by allowing drilling in ANWR. The ANWR provision got stripped out in the Senate. So the amount of money to pay for LIHEAP was no longer present. I would like to see drilling in ANWR. I think it is important to diversify our energy supplies in America. The money would have been there and people would not have had objections. I agreed to that last year. This is purely deficit spending even though the proponents of the bill say it is not because of the phony budget games that are played around here. But because it is deficit spending, we are going to try to make sure that the money is spent fairly across the United States. That is what this whole debate is going to come down to in the next day or two. Mr. President, with that, I reserve the remainder of our time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.