John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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. ENSIGN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, we have a lot of requests from folks who are trying to get out. I guess there are planes leaving. How about 2 minutes for each side.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, first of all, I was in the meeting with Senator Snowe before Christmas. This is not the formula that we had agreed on in those meetings. Second of all, the formula that she says will benefit the warmer States is not accurate. It is not historically accurate. It is not accurate with regards to the contingency funding. Contingency funds were released in January. There are 29 States that will be worse off under the Snowe proposal, if this money is put through the regular formula, the warmer States benefit. The whole formula was set up so that mostly colder States would benefit from the first dollars, and then if dollars are added, the warmer States would benefit. But the way this amendment is set up that is, in fact, not what happens. We have a budget point of order. People have to know that we are not voting on cloture on the bill or cloture on a motion to proceed to the bill, but we are actually voting on a budget point of order. This has been described as a mild winter. There is plenty of evidence for that, especially on the east coast. I think the only two States that could arguably say it has been a harsher winter than normal are Oregon and Washington. And most of the rest of the country has had a fairly mild winter. The point that somehow the Northeast needs this more because they have more higher heating expenses isn't true. Electricity in most of the country now is generated by natural gas. Because of the environmental concerns plants have switched over to natural gas. Air conditioning in the Southern States is just as critical as heat in Northern States. When it gets hot enough, people die from heat. The LIHEAP formula was set up to be able to help warmer States and help low-income people in those warmer States. Frankly, this proposal does not do that. It does not do that fairly. If this money were all put through the regular formula this would be a fair proposal. That is why the Senator from Louisiana's State would lose around $18 million if this formula were done differently, as she would like to see it done, versus the way Senator Snowe has this drafted. I didn't think this is the time for us to be waiving budget points of order. We are facing difficult fiscal times, and we need to show some fiscal restraint around here. Hopefully, we can sustain this budget point of order. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, there is no question that one of the reasons this was even in the bill--in the Defense bill--was because ANWR was in there to help pay for extra money for LIHEAP. One of the reasons they say this is paid for is because they are taking money out of 2007 and moving it into 2006. We know this is a phony argument. We have seen it done around here time and time again. They are budget games that are played so they can say things are budget neutral. How do you spend $1 billion and call it budget neutral? You are not taking something else and cutting spending someplace else. You are only shifting to the next year. This budget point of order is real, and this budget point of order I think should be sustained.

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I want to reiterate a little about what Senator Coburn talked about, whether this bill is paid for; if people want to truly pay for this legislation then we must cut other areas of spending. This is about priorities. If this is a priority--and a lot of people think it is, the Senator from Minnesota and the Senators from Maine and others from around the country believe it is a priority--then other sacrifices must be made to meet this priority. We need to set priorities in this country. There are those of us who believe that deficits are real. They are absolutely real. People get up and talk about them all the time. But when it comes right down to whether you are willing to make tough choices instead of just increasing the spending and passing that debt on to the next generation, they aren't willing to offer other spending cuts so that we are not increasing the deficit. That is the point that Senator Coburn and myself are trying to make. It is time to start being fiscally responsible around here instead of just passing this debt on to the next generation. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a very important issue--access for our military recruiters on our high school campuses. Later today, I will introduce a resolution in support of our military recruiters. I rise and stand here today in a country free from tyranny, free from dictatorship, and free from oppression. I stand here today protected by the rights that are guaranteed to me by the Constitution of the United States. I am free to stand here because I am protected by the men and women of our nation's Armed Forces. It is because of our Nation's military that I enjoy the freedoms that are laid out in our country's Constitution. These freedoms are enjoyed by every citizen of this great country. The No Child Left Behind Act contains a provision that provides military recruiters and college and university recruiters with access to some student information. The intent behind this provision was to ensure that military recruiters were put on a level playing field with recruiters from our Nation's colleges and universities. At the time this language was included in NCLB military recruiters across the country were being denied access to student information that college and university recruiters were given full access to. The text contained in No Child Left Behind is very simple. It states that ``each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide, on a request made by military recruiters or an institution of higher education, access to secondary school students' names, addresses, and telephone listings.'' Recently, there have been numerous news reports on this topic. The debate has swirled around a provision also in NCLB that allows a student or parent to request that contact information not be released to recruiters. School districts are required to inform parents and students that they have the option to make this request. In some areas the debate on this provision has gone much further. The city of San Francisco recently voted in favor of Measure I, a symbolic measure that opposes, but does not forbid, military recruiting on public high school or college campuses. The city cannot forbid military recruiting at public high schools as doing so would put the schools at risk of losing all federal funding. I cannot fathom why the city passed this Measure. Students in San Francisco should have access to the same information that all other students have, and should be allowed to hear what the military has to offer them. I understand the concerns surrounding privacy of personal information in today's society. However, I find it appalling that people have taken this provision and used it to rally against our troops, against our military system, and against our President. We are here today because we are secured by the presence of our military that protects our freedoms. My question is why are we so frightened by the very instrument that helps keep us free? Service in our armed forces is 100 percent voluntary and has been since the end of the Vietnam War. In order to maintain a voluntary force, the services must offer incentives to allow them to compete with the private sector for young, bright students about to graduate from high school. Recruiters search for the best and the brightest in our Nation's high schools to keep our forces strong and able to fight the forces that are against our way of life. In the last 30 years, millions of young Americans have been given technical skills, received money for college tuition and preferred loans for first-time home purchases by choosing to serve in our military. Not only are these young soldiers given skills that can lead them to future employment, they are also given unique leadership training. Our military trains leaders not just for war, but for success in life. Yet, it is perplexing to me that many parents today seem to look at military service as being akin to joining a radical cult or a violent gang. Military recruiters are going to our Nation's high schools to inform high school students of the opportunities that are available in our Armed Forces. Military recruiters are on campuses to provide information to students that is often not available in the mainstream media or in many high school counseling offices. Military recruiters are on high school campuses to dispel the many myths that surround service opportunities in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines and Coast Guard. Some parents are concerned about reports of recruiter abuse. In fact, following televised reports of recruiter abuse, the U.S. Army stopped recruiting activities for one day to review procedures that its 7,500 recruiters use. In one case the network reported a recruiter suggesting how a volunteer might cheat to pass a drug test, and in another, a sergeant threatened a prospect with arrest if he didn't report to a recruiting station. Two cases out of 7,500 Army recruiters operating out of some 1,700 recruiting stations nationwide prompted the Army to stand down, to refocus recruiters on their mission, reinforcing the Army's core values, and ensure its procedures were carried out consistently at all recruiting stations. It sounds like a pretty responsible reaction to me. It sounds like an institution concerned about doing things the right way. We must not forget the brave young men and women who do sign up for a tour of duty with the military. They swear to uphold and to protect the Constitution. We must not forget they take that duty seriously. They protect each and every one of us from outside threats, not just threats of violence but also threats to our constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and religion. In his book ``The Greatest Generation,'' Tom Brokaw recounts a generation of Americans who sacrificed all they had to preserve our freedoms. Young men even went so far as to lie about their age so they could enjoy the honor of fighting for our country in World War II. Their country needed them, and they responded with uncommon valor and courage. The crucible of war formed who we are as a country today. Today, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines stand on the shoulders of those warriors. We celebrate their accomplishments in movies and books. We regale them with the honors they earned and deserve. I wonder what sort of message we are sending to today's youth if we honor the soldiers of yesterday but shun the soldiers of today. My fear is that freedom is becoming almost too free, too entitled to more and more Americans. As long as we are free to switch cell phone service or download music from any Web site, we believe our freedoms are intact. But freedom is about so much more than that. Freedom is having the ability to speak our mind and stand for what we believe. Freedom means having the right to publicly disagree with the decisions of elected leaders. Freedom is a right, but it comes with a responsibility. As a parent, I have the direct responsibility to teach my children about the honor in serving our fellow man, our community, and in serving our country. As parents, from the time our children are born, we worry about their health, the friends they keep, the decisions they make, and the grades they bring home from school. We worry about drugs, letting them drive, and about preparing them for a life after mom and dad. But when we shield young adults from the things that scare us as parents, we belittle our children. It is our responsibility to share the world with our children, in many cases, the good with the bad. It is our responsibility to instill in them a sense of pride in our country and in the freedom we enjoy. We cannot shield our children from information about military service because in doing so, we underestimate our children's capacity to judge for themselves what their future should be. It is vital that our young adults in high school have access not only to future employment and educational opportunities but also to the opportunities provided in the U.S. military. And most importantly, it is absolutely necessary that our Nation's military have the opportunity to recruit the best and the brightest our Nation has to offer. If we continue to discriminate against our military recruiters, we risk undermining the well-being of our military. We risk fracturing the base on which our Army, our Navy, our Air Force and our Marines is built. It is vital that recruiters have access to our Nation's young adults to continue the traditions of our Armed Forces. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, my home State of Nevada is a State that is friendly to business. We pride ourselves on the opportunities that businesses have to thrive and grow in our State, while providing an excellent quality of life for employees and their families. As chairman of the Republican High Tech Task Force, I come into contact with many companies, all who hear my pitch for why they should expand into Nevada. But as good as businesses have it in Nevada, or if they move to Nevada, what we do here in Washington, DC will ultimately help make or break their success. And when businesses fail to thrive, so does our economy. Investors in a business in California may be sitting down today to determine whether their 2-year plan includes expanding to Nevada with, for instance, a manufacturing plant that will employ 200 people. They are excited about the possibilities, but there are too many blank spaces when it comes time to crunch the numbers. Weighing heavily in their calculations, they are concerned that the current dividends and capital gains tax rates will expire in 2008. Because of the uncertainty of those critical factors, they are leery about the prospects. They will make that decision about expanding and reinvesting in their businesses today. Not next year and not the year after that. Today. But we have tied one hand behind their back. We are standing in the way of their growth and potential if we do not extend the dividends and capital gains tax rates. They need that assurance today so that they can expand, create jobs, and help our economy continue to grow. The economic growth we have seen since lower tax rates were enacted in the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 is exactly why we must extend the rates. Dividend distributions are up. Corporate investment in new property, plant, and equipment has surged. The economy has grown for 10 consecutive quarters. These are impressive results, and they are not just about business succeeding. The impact is being felt by families, seniors, and low- income individuals. With more than 50 percent--50 percent--of American households owning stocks or mutual funds, the reach of dividends and capital gains rates is significant. Today, many senior citizens rely on dividends and capital gains to supplement their Social Security. And lower and middle-income families are benefiting as well. Without this extension, our economy will take a hit, and so will working families across Nevada. Instead of closing doors on them, we need to create certainty in our Tax Code and opportunity for our economy. Although the tax rates don't expire until 2008, we don't have the luxury of waiting 2 years to extend this. By then, too many investors and businesses will have made their decisions not to grow, not to build, and not to hire. It will be too late. We are part of a global economy that is constantly moving and changing. If we don't allow investment to fuel our competitiveness and innovation, we will pay the price, and so will future generations. It is not just one business in California deciding whether to move to Nevada, and it is not just the 200 employees who could have found work there; it is about investors and companies across our Nation and it is about working families throughout this country, and it is about the future of our economy. There aren't many factors that Congress controls when it comes to capital and business investment. This is one of them, and we must join together to ensure continued economic growth. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, before the Senator from New Jersey speaks, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. ENSIGN. Whose time is that coming off of, Mr. President?

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I want to speak. We are debating a budget point of order. People in America are thinking this is some kind of a technical jargon that Senators are using. What does it mean? A budget point of order is a parliamentary rule that can be used to make sure that the Senate carefully weighs whether we are putting undue burdens and obligations on future Congresses, which obviously means to future generations of Americans. We are raising--and I have raised--this budget point of order today. I will be the first one to admit, it is a very technical budget point of order. But let me explain the reasons I believe it is a real budget point of order in its effect, stopping huge obligations by this Government in the future. In the wisdom, I believe, of the Senate in last year's budget, we put in a budget point of order that would say beyond 10 years, if there is spending of more than $5 billion obligated, a bill would be subject to a budget point of order. It is because it had become practice around here to make things kind of ramp up, and, then, in the future spend the money so it did not look as though we were spending money now. It looked as though things were either budget neutral or had very little impact on the budget. I said the other day on this very floor, talking about what is going to happen with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, as the baby boomers retire in this country, it is a serious problem we are facing. If there is a problem with this trust fund--which many people believe there will be a huge problem with this trust fund, that it will be grossly underfunded--if the problem ends up coming back to the taxpayer, it will happen at a time when the baby boomers are starting to retire. I know the Presiding Officer from South Carolina is one of the most fiscally responsible people in this body. I have followed his short record in the Senate and know how passionate he is about our entitlement programs. I feel the same way he does. But with that looming problem of the baby boomers coming up, the last thing we can afford to do is to enact a bill that potentially could have a major impact--literally, maybe with a number in the hundreds of billions of dollars--that could have a drain on our Government. The Senator from Pennsylvania says there are no Federal revenues at stake here, the trust fund does not allow for that. Here is why I think it is a real budget point of order. I have been around this place long enough--I have only been here in the Senate 5 years, and in the House before that 4 years, but that is long enough to see how this town works. The Congress is creating this trust fund. If this trust fund runs out of money and there are still victims around, the people in this very body will stand up and say: Congress created the problem, Congress needs to fix the problem. Everybody will join in because there will be victims and people will have posters of victims out there. And there are real victims, people who are suffering, people who are not getting the help they need today. That is why I believe this is a real budget point of order because I think the Congress will act and will give the money to supplement the trust fund. It will not be their money; it will be the taxpayers' money. But they will give the money. Now, I have heard a lot of people come down here and say why there is a problem. The fact is, we have a broken legal system that needs to be fixed. The trial lawyers in this country have discovered these class action lawsuits: Bring your Rolodex in and we will see who we can sue. And so many people who are not victims are clogging up the courts, who I believe are led there by unscrupulous lawyers. It is blocking real victims from receiving compensation. It has been said that many businesses have gone out of business. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee has argued one of the reasons we need the trust fund is because a lot of businesses have gone out of business so there is nobody left to sue. Why did they go out of business in the first place? It is because of frivolous lawsuits, having to spend millions and millions of dollars defending themselves. In a lot of these cases, the businesses had nothing to do with asbestos. I remember this one company that came in to visit me. They were an insurance company thinking of getting into insuring folks in the asbestos field. So they did a study. They came to the conclusion it was too risky, and they decided not to go into that business. I forget the exact figure, but I know since that time they have paid hundreds of millions of dollars out defending themselves because they did not release the study. This was their own internal document they used to decide whether they were going to go into a certain business. But because they did not release the study, trial lawyers brought them in to the courts and sued them. In many cases, it is cheaper to settle than it is to defend yourself in court. So they paid out umpteen millions of dollars. The problem with that is insurance companies are a passthrough. Americans are paying the bills. They are just a company that takes in premiums and pays out claims. They are there to make a profit. And if they have to pay things out, they have to raise the premiums, which we all pay. So we know there is a serious problem. We know it has been caused because of a bad system, and we need to fix the system. I am the first one who wants to stand up here to fix the system. The alliance that has been formed here to try to support this budget point of order is a little strange. There are some fiscal conservatives. There are some people who support the trial lawyers. I have never been exactly claimed by the trial lawyers as being one of their friends, and I feel a little uncomfortable to be in this position, to be honest with you. But I am standing up for this budget point of order because I believe this bill is fiscally irresponsible to the taxpayers into the future. Now, I want to address one other portion or one other thought no one has addressed on the floor of the Senate. I was in the House of Representatives for 4 years, and there I served on the Ways and Means Committee. The Constitution of the United States says something very clear. It is a very simple writing. That is the beauty of the Constitution, how simple the writing is. Section 7 of article I of the Constitution states: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. . . . That is a very simple statement. In the letter to the budget chairman, the Congressional Budget Office says: CBO expects those sums-- Talking about the sums for the trust fund-- would be treated in the budget as Federal revenues. Section 7: All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. Any Member of the House of Representatives can raise this constitutional question. I cannot remember a time when somebody raised this constitutional question when the House of Representatives did not support it. It is called a blue slip. I raised one when I was there. It was on the nuclear waste bill that was up. I raised that budget point of order, and that was at a time when the vast majority of House Members supported the nuclear waste bill. Yet they supported me on that blue slip, that constitutional question, because they wanted to protect their rights as a body. Well, beyond the budget point of order, we may be spinning our wheels because this trust fund raises revenues, and it is the prerogative of the House of Representatives to start a bill like that. So even beyond the budget point of order, we may be wasting our time with this bill because of the trust fund that has been set up. So I encourage my colleagues, let's sustain this budget point of order and start over. Let's get a good medical criteria bill, work in a bipartisan fashion, get together and limit it. Let's make sure that victims of asbestosis and mesothelioma are compensated. Let's get rid of all of the phony claims. It will quit clogging up our court system. We won't have all these lawyers getting rich over all these class action lawsuits. We will actually get the victims their just compensation. If we join together and get something done and quit making partisan political points, I believe the actual victims will be better off, but so will those businesses that are threatened to go out of existence even as we speak. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENSIGN. Yes.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. It was with great reluctance that I raised this budget point of order. I have a great deal of respect for Senator Specter and believe there is a great need to enact asbestos legal reform. There are companies that are shutting down. Many of the current tort claims are fraudulent. There are victims who are not getting the compensation they need and deserve. The asbestos crisis is a serious problem that is threatening the economy of the United States. I recognize that. I voted for the Cornyn substitute because I believed it was a better answer to help the United States, our economy, and the victims. The Hippocratic oath, to first do no harm, has been mentioned on this floor before. Unfortunately, this Chamber has, on many occasions, done more harm than good. There is so much unpredictability in this bill that my fear is we are considering doing far more harm than the current system. In the December 19 letter written to Senator Specter from the Congressional Budget Office, that Senator Specter and Senator Conrad were just talking about, it says: There is a significant likelihood that the fund's revenues would fall short of the amount needed to pay valid claims, debt service, and administrative costs. There is also some likelihood that the fund's revenues would be sufficient. So there is a significant likelihood that they won't be enough and some likelihood that they will. CBO's final conclusion is that they cannot predict the Budget impact of this bill with any degree of certainty. We have all seen the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Tax Committee's work product. It is put together by hard-working folks who do their best to estimate. But I have not seen their estimates turn out to be accurate very often. This is because what they do is an incredibly inexact science. What they are trying to estimate in this bill is even less precise, less exact of a science than what they normally do. Just a given example with respect to JCT, I had a tax provision about a year and a half ago that had to do with bringing money from overseas back into this country. The CBO estimated it would result in $125 billion to $140 billion coming back into this country for investment. We thought that estimate was very low. It turns out we were right. To date over $350 billion has been reinvested in the United States, far in excess of the estimate. Now if CBO's estimate is off on this particular legislation to the degree that the estimate was on my legislation, we are in serious trouble. That is why the CBO says, and the Democratic ranking member and the Republican Budget Committee chairman say, the point of order is valid and lies on this bill. I think there are problems with this bill. One problem has to do with the medical criteria. It allows all kinds of people to recover without any degree of certainty as to how many future claimants there will be. The potential is huge. So despite my strong desire to fix this legislation, I believe that it cannot be fixed. I wish Senator Cornyn's substitute would have passed. I thought that was the right place to start working on solving the asbestos crisis. This body could have worked with that legislation. We could have made sensible changes to move that version forward. I don't think that the underlying piece of legislation can be fixed to provide any certainty. I don't see how we can ensure that the taxpayers do not end up with a huge mess that includes a great deal of debt for future generations. When will the uncertainty occur? Will it be 8, 10, 12, or 15 years from now? I don't know. When the uncertainty comes, the debt that the taxpayers will be asked to shoulder could be enormous. And this bill could come due at exactly the wrong time. When we can least afford it. It will come due when the baby boomers start affecting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I respect the chairman of the Judiciary Committee a great deal for the work he has done, and I know he has tried to work in a bipartisan fashion and with many industries. They say politics makes strange bedfellows. This legislation proves that to be true. When the positions that we take on this bill or on the point of order do not break down by party lines and when liberals and conservatives are likewise divided, you know that this bill has strange dynamics. Industries that are normally allies are also split on this bill. Trial lawyers are split on this bill. The reasons for such a split are a result of the uncertainty about this piece of legislation. I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues to allow me to speak for a few minutes. I look forward to the debate on this point of order. I am not sure exactly when we will vote on it, but I hope the point of order is sustained. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending bill violates section 407 of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ENSIGN. I object.

Mr. ENSIGN. Is the Senator aware, the ranking member on the Budget Committee, that the current Republican chairman of the Budget Committee has indeed ruled that the point of order I raised today is actually valid?

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr., to the U.S. Supreme Court. One of the greatest honors and responsibilities of a Senator is a vote we cast to confirm judges. Our role is not one that I take lightly. It is with deep respect for the laws of this Nation and for the highest Court in our land that I stand before the Senate today. As Senators, we are tasked with the specific duty in the checks and balances system of our Government. It is with our advice and consent that a President's nominee is confirmed or rejected. This is how it has worked since the Constitution was adopted. Our forefathers, with great brilliance and foresight, wanted to ensure that no one person wielded excessive power. However, at the same time, it is the President who selects a nominee. He earns that power as the elected leader of the United States. President Bush nominated Judge Alito. We are here to consider that nomination. I had the opportunity to meet Judge Alito and I find he is extremely qualified to join the highest Court in this land. His experience, his temperament, his understanding of the role of the Court and his respect for the law make him an admirable candidate who I believe will serve this Nation well. The single most important factor that went into my decision of whether to support Judge Alito has to do with the Justices' role on the Court. The job of the judiciary is to apply and interpret the Constitution and the laws of the land. Unfortunately, not everyone sees it that way. That is why judicial activism has become so rampant in this country. In no way is it the judiciary's purview to make laws. That is clearly the job of legislators. Legislators are to make the laws and judges apply them. Judge Alito understands this principle and has demonstrated so throughout his esteemed career. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee he spoke about the limited role of the judiciary. Judge Alito stated it should always be asking itself whether it has strayed over the bounds, whether it is invading the authority of the legislature, for example, whether it is making policy judgments rather than interpreting the law. That has to be a constant process of reexamination of the judges. During Judge Alito's confirmation hearing, Democrats tried to make the case that judicial precedent is more important than the Constitution itself. Most Americans believe the words of the Constitution should have real meaning. A strict constructionist approach to interpreting the Constitution is necessary for the consistent application of our laws. How can we as the legislative branch do our jobs effectively when the judicial branch is free to provide an expansive reading of the Constitution at any moment? I don't believe we can. For this reason, we need judges who value the Constitution first. Precedent is a necessary tool to ensure consistent application of the laws, but precedent should not be held so high that we prohibit judges from revisiting bad precedent. The history of the Supreme Court supports this idea. If bad precedent could not be overturned, Plessy v. Ferguson would still stand and racial segregation would still be legal in this country. That thought is truly reprehensible. The Supreme Court, in fact, has overturned its own precedent at least 225 times. That is nearly once per year. I support Judge Alito's nomination because his testimony demonstrates his understanding of the principle that the Constitution, and not precedent, is preeminent. In addition to his clear and committed approach to interpreting laws and not being a judicial activist, I think the testimony and support of his colleagues speaks volumes about what we can expect from Justice Alito. Judge Maryanne Trump Barry has served on the Third Circuit with Judge Alito since President Bill Clinton appointed her in 1999. She also worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office with Judge Alito in the late 1970s. About his service as U.S. attorney, she stated: Samuel Alito set a standard of excellence that was contagious--his commitment to doing the right thing, never playing fast and loose with the record, never taking a shortcut, his emphasis on first-rate work, his fundamental decency. Judge Aldisert of the Third Circuit, appointed by President Johnson, has worked with Judge Alito for 15 years. He testified about the experience of those who have served with Judge Alito. Because of Judge Alito's work on the bench, he stated: . . . we who are his colleagues are convinced that he will also be a great justice. The character, the qualifications, and the commitment of Judge Alito are not in question by anybody in this room. His long history of public service has proven that. He has served our judicial system and our Nation with the utmost honor, and we can expect him to continue that legacy from our Supreme Court. I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to consider their vote and to avoid partisanship. Consider Judge Alito's qualifications. Consider his respect for the Constitution. Senator Kyl from Arizona preceded me on the floor. He talked about the dangerous precedent that would be set if this body were to depart from the standard of judging nominees based on their experience in favor of a partisan approach. Republicans, back in the 1990s, voted for two people they knew would be liberal. The basis on which Judge Alito's confirmation is based will likely determine the basis by which all future nominees will be judged. What I think is important to consider is not how someone will rule but rather on their judicial approach with respect to the words of the Constitution, at the writing of the Founders, at the principles on which America was founded. That is the judicial approach I want somebody to have on the Highest Court in the land. And that is the judicial approach I believe--no one knows for sure, but I believe-- Samuel Alito has and how he will make judgments as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. So I urge all my colleagues to support his nomination. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the deficit reduction bill that we have before us after many hours of people working together, compromising. You could go through the bill and pick out parts that you like and you don't like, so I want to put this in a bigger picture. I want to step back and look at what we are dealing with as a country. Over the next 5 years, we were slated to spend, before this bill, and if this bill does not go into effect, we will spend $13.8 trillion. If we pass this bill, this deficit reduction bill, we will still spend $13.76 trillion. Those numbers are impossible to understand. Impossible. They are too big. Let's try to get our arms around a little bit of a number. I always like to talk about $1 trillion with high school kids so they can understand it. I always ask them: Do you think a million dollars is a lot of money? And of course a lot of us think a million dollars is a lot of money. I ask them: If you spent a million dollars a day, do you think you would be spending a lot of money? And the unanimous answer of high school kids is: Of course that is a lot of money. I tell them that to get to $1 trillion, not $13.76 trillion but just $1 trillion, you would have to start spending a million dollars a day, start at the time Jesus was born, go until today and you still would not be at $1 trillion. What we are trying to do is to shave and slow the rate of growth of spending a tiny bit. It is almost insignificant. But what is significant in the bill is that we are starting to take on entitlement spending. Entitlement spending now is two-thirds of the Federal budget, and it is slated to grow into an ever-increasing share of the Federal budget in the future. We all know that. Republicans, Democrats, it doesn't matter who looks at the numbers, entitlements will gobble up the entire Federal budget. If you study democratic forms of government--and I know Senator Byrd, who has spoken, has done a lot of this--if you study democratic forms of government, they always collapse due to two reasons, and they happen in a particular order. The first thing that happens is there is a moral collapse in the country, and it is always followed by an economic collapse. If you think about it, it makes sense that it happens in that order. You see, if you have people who are not moral enough to think about the next generation, what they do is they elect people to office who will give them what they want by borrowing from the Treasury; in other words, borrowing from the next generations. When the debt gets too large, this debt gets so large the economy cannot handle it and you end up with all kinds of economic problems and finally an economic collapse. We are headed for that if we do not get entitlements under control. That is why this bill, even though it is a small amount of money--if you listen to the other side, you would think the sky is falling, as far as spending is concerned. This is a tiny, insignificant almost, amount of money. But it is significant in that we are finally starting to tackle entitlement spending. That is why this bill is so important. So when we hear the debate on both sides, boil it down to this very simple thing. Are we going to care enough about the next generation to finally start saying no to some of this big Federal Government spending? I believe it is time this body stands up. Instead of being selfish, instead of giving our voters what they want so they keep sending us back here, let's stand up and do what is right and think about future generations. I yield the floor.