John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: If I yield the floor, we go directly to the votes?

Mr. ENSIGN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I think what the Senator has stated is very concise. That is exactly the intent of the amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from Michigan that the current policy is exactly what our amendment is trying to reinforce. It is the interpretation of that current policy that is happening down at the State Department that we are trying to clarify. We think they are misinterpreting the current policy which has existed for some time now in the United States. We now need to clarify it so that our warriors know exactly that they can use riot control agents under specific uses, as the examples that the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services has pointed out.

Mr. ENSIGN. That is correct, Mr. President.

Mr. ENSIGN. I think the policy is very clear in this Executive order, as well as what the Senate stated. But it appears that certain people down at the State Department have interpreted it a different way and believe there is a higher threshold that our warriors must come under before they can use these riot control agents out on the battlefield; that they must seek Presidential authority. That is what we are trying to clarify here, is to get back to what this Executive order said, as well as what the Senate stated in 1997.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Pursuant to section 904(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 305 of the Budget Act for the consideration of the Ensign second-degree amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, now that we have been through all that, just to restate, the managers of the underlying amendment believe their proposal is constitutional. But the lawyers for the private schools, the ones who have looked at this, believe they could not accept the aid in a constitutional manner, that people will be able to bring a court case against them and that they would lose if they did not change the way they do their instruction. They have a moral, religious-based instruction. They believe they would have to change it. Our amendment clearly makes the way they receive the funds constitutional. We both want to provide help for those people who have been displaced, for those schools that have taken in these displaced students. We both want to have the help go. What we want to do, though, is allow the private schools to function as they have been functioning in the past. If you are a Catholic school, you would be able to function as a Catholic school functions and not be penalized for that because you have taken in these displaced students and are getting some Federal aid.

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, at the end of 2 minutes, that time being expired, I intend to send a second-degree amendment to the Enzi amendment to the desk. Let me briefly describe it. My amendment addresses the concerns of the Orthodox Union, the Catholic Bishops, and the Council on American Private Education. My amendment clearly establishes an indirect aid program for displaced private school students that meets all the constitutional requirements without placing unworkable and unnecessary restrictions on private schools serving these displaced families. It ensures accountability for the funds and, most important, delivers on the much-needed relief to ensure the restart and operation of schools at all levels in the affected areas. The 2002 Zellman decision by the Supreme Court clarified that religious schools which accept Government funding do not have to modify their teachings and curricula in order to receive Government funding so long as the Government aid arrives at the school by virtue of an independent choice made by the student and parent, and this amendment complies with that decision and meets all of its constitutional requirements.

Mr. ENSIGN. I send a second-degree amendment to the Enzi amendment to the desk.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2368 at the desk.

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, first, I want to talk about the general part of the Deficit Reduction Act we have before us, and which the Commerce Committee dealt with a major part of. It has to do with the transition to digital television. It is a confusing issue for a lot of people, the issue of analog television versus digital television. Digital television will bring far superior quality to our television. We hear about high definition. We hear about digital television today. There is a lot of confusion out there. In 1996, we set out to transition our television sets--actually by the end of this year--over to the digital age, basically the 21st century in television, in which we would have a much higher quality picture for our television. Because of a lot of reasons--I think a lot of them are political--we aren't to that point. But what we are doing today in this bill is we have all agreed we are going to have a hard date to actually transition to digital television. What is good about it is everybody can start planning. We will know exactly the time we need to transition from the current television signals the broadcasters are using. Actually, many of them are already broadcasting in both digital and analog, but they will know there will be a hard date where they have to get fully geared to broadcast only in digital. What does this mean for the consumer out there? A lot of people are afraid: Is my television set going to be turned off when this hard date comes into effect? If we do this right, their television will actually work better than it does today. Even their normal analog television will work better when the hard date comes than it actually works today. With the purchase of a little converter box, they will be able to receive that digital signal. Even if they do not have cable television, with their current analog television--which most televisions are today in the United States--they will be able to receive more television channels free without rabbit ears, without the basic cable that they have today. Because of the way technology works today in the digital age, for each one of those stations which they now have, they will get several stations of digital. There will be a lot more programming which they will actually get free over the air. They will not have to pay for it. This is an advantage for people who aren't on cable or satellite when we go to this hard date. There are a lot of reasons for wanting to have that hard date. For those who know anything about the Internet, we always hear about high- speed Internet, or broadband access. The United States is falling further and further behind the rest of the world when it comes to broadband or high-speed Internet access. We used to be 11th in the world a couple years ago when it comes to broadband. Today, we have slipped to 16th in the world. Eleventh was unacceptable for the United States, but 16th makes us less competitive in this highly technological world we are in in this global marketplace. We have to do everything we can to advance the United States getting up to speed to the Internet. If you live in a rural area, one of the things this bill will do today, thanks to the good work by Senator Stevens, chairman of the Commerce Committee, one of the good things about having a hard date is that we will be able to free up some spectrum when the broadcasters go off analog. There is valuable spectrum they will go off when they convert to digital. When they go off the spectrum, the spectrum will be auctioned and used for a lot of good uses. If you live in rural America and you want broadband coming into your home, this spectrum will allow broadband to go throughout the United States with very cheap ways of setting up the infrastructure. Today, it is very expensive to wire, to lay down cables or fiber optics in the ground to rural America. This spectrum is going to make it much more affordable to bring broadband or high-speed Internet access to rural America. That is another one of the huge advantages we have for making a hard date. First responders need the spectrum that the broadcasters currently occupy as well. It will make the radios work better. It penetrates, for instance, stairwells. On September 11, the first responders' radios did not work as well as they should because they do not have the same kind of spectrum they need to make the radios work better. Getting the broadcasters off this analog spectrum will also make their radios work better. In the bill, we give $3 billion to convert these analog televisions, these little converter boxes that people will need to get for their televisions to work properly if they do not have cable or if they do not have satellite. Three billion dollars, by many experts I have talked to in looking at the experiences of countries such as Germany that have done similar things, $3 billion is not going to be necessary. First of all, I don't believe that everyone who has one of these television sets should get a subsidy. We should have that subsidy for low- or low-to-moderate-income families only. For somebody who has a lot of money, why should a middle-income taxpayer have some of their tax dollars going to subsidize somebody who happens to have a bunch of TVs in their house that wants a converter box? The average cost is estimated between $45 and $60 when they are in mass production. I don't think it is unreasonable for somebody of means to buy that on their own. Most people buy a new computer for their home every few years for a lot more money than what this converter box will cost. It is very reasonable to cut the amount we have from $3 billion down to $1 billion for the subsidy. That is exactly what our amendment does. At this time of runaway Government spending, it is important to look at every place we can to save money. Our amendment says instead of spending $3 billion on converter boxes to give subsidies to everybody in America, we will only spend $1 billion. Right now, we cannot set the policies in place, but we can set the amount in place. Later on, we can come back with the policies that will reflect the billion. The House of Representatives put in their bill $990 million, right around $1 billion, which is what we reflect. They went through the whole committee process. They did the same thing. It is difficult to get our bill out of committee at the $3 billion level, but it is the responsible thing to do for this Senate, instead of subsidizing those who can afford to buy their own converter boxes, to take $2 billion of that and put it toward offsetting some of the spending in other areas with higher priorities at this time. I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska always makes very good and important points. I emphasize a couple of things. First of all, I ask unanimous consent that this GAO report be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, the reason I hold up this report, partly to respond, during the hearings we had on transitioning from the analog spectrum to digital, we had the Germany experience where parts of Germany transitioned, and they had a program to subsidize some people who would need to make their analog sets operate in a digital world. When they had this program in Germany, not nearly as many people participated in it as their government expected to happen. The GAO report said if there were no means test, it would cost about $1 billion for all of the over-the-air broadcast televisions, one per household for all of those who do not have cable and who do not have satellite television. This is for, on average, about $50 per set-top box. Now, what I have said, and what I would like to see happen, is that we means test this, that anybody, let's say, who is up to 200 percent of poverty would be the only ones subsidized for a set-top box. If we did that, we could buy every one of those households two set-top boxes for under $1 billion, and we would have enough money left over to administer the program. And that is if 100 percent of the homes participate--100 percent. Now, I think it is reasonable for us to expect that not 100 percent of the homes are going to participate, but that is even with 100 percent of the low-income homes participating. Even if they do, we will have enough money in the program to buy every household, of 200 percent of poverty or below, two of these set-top boxes to make sure their analog television works when we transition over to the digital age. So I think it is very reasonable for us to only have $1 billion-- which ``only $1 billion'' around here is a low number, I guess, but it is still a lot of money. I think that is plenty of money for us to transition. Let us not forget that their televisions are going to be working better. It is not like we are just giving them the same service. They are going to get more services. First of all, their TV sets will work better. The picture will be clearer. When you have over-the-air broadcasts today, and you have rabbit ears, it is not a very clear picture. There is a lot of fuzz, and a lot of times it is not great reception. In the digital age, your television will be much clearer. And for every one of those television stations you currently have, you will also have other stations--weather channels, news channels--broadcasting over the air for free. You will get a lot more services for less money. So I don't think, for anybody making above 200 percent of the poverty level, it is unreasonable for us to ask them to buy their own set-top boxes. That is why I think there will be plenty of money, even at the billion-dollar level, to be able to handle these things and some of the other things that may be needed down in the gulf coast. But I look forward to working with the chairman of the committee. I always hate to go against him because he is so accommodating on the committee. But this is something we will look forward to working with the chairman on as we move through this process. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I will take a couple more minutes.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, first of all, I want to explain to everybody how important it is what the chairman of the Commerce Committee has done in getting us a hard date. Less than a year ago, in the Commerce Committee, there was no way we were going to have a hard date. People were talking maybe it would be 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 years from now. Some people said we would never have a hard date to convert from the analog TV over to digital. So the committee chairman deserves a great deal of credit for actually getting us to this time, where we are going to have a hard date. But the reason I think this is a reasonable amendment--and I would just reemphasize to my chairman--is I believe this program should be means tested, that it should not be for everybody in America, millionaires and the like, to be able to get a digital converter box. If they do not have cable in their homes, it is because they choose not to. So they should be able to buy their own converter boxes. As I talked about this GAO study I have, if we limit it to people who are at 200 percent of poverty and below, we can buy every one of those households two converter boxes for less than $1 billion. If we do not cut the money down from $3 billion to $1 billion, I am afraid we will subsidize every income level home in America, and this money will not go for deficit reduction, that we will actually spend up to the $3 billion. So that is the purpose for offering this amendment. It is to try to guide the policy in the future, not just the money today. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.