John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2300.

Mr. ENSIGN. Very briefly, I will clarify a couple of points. One, that this was a bid process. To use an example, say, for instance, that the Government, the Department of Education, wanted to give away printers to China, so they sent out several bids. They had an open bidding process and selected one company. Even though it was fairly bid, would we want the Federal Government using taxpayer dollars to buy from one company so they could give that product to the Chinese? I think not because that would be a disadvantage for other companies in the United States who should be able to compete to sell their products in China. On the second point the Senator from Tennessee raised, he said the Department of Education is willing to share research on some of the innovations that are trying to develop. Looking through the details of what the Department of Education has asked for the software companies to develop, there are at least five software companies that already meet those specifications. They already have developed the features the Department of Education is attempting to develop. Once again, I urge agreement of the amendment.

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, before I speak on my amendment, briefly I will comment about Senator Boxer's amendment. Senator Boxer and I have worked long and hard on afterschool programs, something in which I passionately believe. We worked to try to have this program increased without adding to the deficit, so we had an offset. It was unfortunate the offset was not accepted. I will continue to work with Senator Boxer because it is a program in which I believe. However, I also believe in staying within the budget. So reluctantly, I will have to vote against Senator Boxer's amendment. I say reluctantly. It pains me to do so. To be consistent with my voting record this year, I have voted consistently to stay within the budget. I will reluctantly oppose that amendment. Getting to my amendment, this is a very simple amendment, and I will not speak long because I know everyone needs to get home. I will keep it as simple as possible. My amendment will stop the Department of Education from competing against private companies in the United States that are developing software to teach Chinese students to speak the English language. Normally, one would think that would be a good thing, for the Department of Education to be able to help the Chinese students learn English--English is an international language--that would be a good thing, and we all applaud those efforts. The problem is, there are at least five companies in the United States and probably many more that already have invested their research dollars and created jobs in the United States to produce this very same software. This software exists today and these companies in the United States would like to sell to the Chinese market. I don't think our Government should be in the business of competing with the private sector. We are all worried about jobs in the United States, and here we have the Department of Education contracting to develop software that they can give to the Chinese so they can teach their kids English. There are very effective programs out there that have been developed. We have letter after letter after letter from these companies opposing what the Department of Education is doing. They have asked for help. What this amendment is about is protecting jobs in the United States, protecting those software engineers, those high-value, high-quality jobs in the United States, and to help them be able to sell to other countries--in this case, especially to the Chinese. The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is supporting my amendment and is going to consider this vote in their ratings. If you believe in fiscally conservative principles, we hope you vote for the Ensign amendment. I don't want to take up more time other than to reemphasize this point: Protect jobs in America. We have all voted on trade issues here. With trade issues, the premise behind those is we open markets in both places. We all know that the Chinese and low-cost labor have brought a lot of products into the United States. Here we have products that have been developed in the United States that could be sold in China. That is how trade is supposed to work. While we are doing free-trade agreements, we should not cut off the very jobs created in America to sell to the people in China. I urge passage of our amendment and encourage all of my colleagues to protect jobs in America and vote for this valuable amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I call up amendment No. 2300.

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I yield the floor. amendment no. 2213

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

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise along with my colleagues, Senators Landrieu, Byrd, Specter, Lott, Lieberman, Inouye, Levin, and DeMint, in order to introduce the Virgie S. Arden American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. As a veterinarian, I am well aware of the love that Americans have for their horses. Much of our Nation's early history and culture is associated with these animals. We think of George Washington's horses and the legend of Paul Revere's ride and the Pony Express. More recently, we were reminded of how the Depression Era race between Seabiscuit and War Admiral raised the spirit of our Nation during desperate times. While horses in the United States are not raised for food, last year alone more than 65,000 horses were slaughtered in the United States for human consumption abroad. Tens of thousands more were transported to Canada and Mexico for slaughter there. Work horses, race horses, and even pet horses, many of them young and healthy, are slaughtered for human consumption in Europe and Asia, where the meat is sold as a high- end delicacy. Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly support an end to this practice. This sentiment was reflected in the Senate's recent 69-28 vote to prohibit the use of Federal funds to facilitate horse slaughter. The House of Representatives passed identical legislation by a similarly bipartisan vote in June. Often, owners who sell their horses at auction are unaware that their horses may well be on their way to one of the three remaining slaughterhouses in America where horses are killed for human consumption. These slaughterhouses are foreign-owned and the product is shipped abroad, as are the profits. While several States are attempting to address the concerns of citizens regarding the tens of thousands of horses going to slaughter each year, the absence of Federal law creates a loophole through which the slaughter can continue. Some States have prohibited the use of double-deck cattle trailers to move horses to slaughter. Texas, which is home to two of the three slaughter plants, has had a law in place since 1949 to effectively prohibit horse slaughter for human consumption. Yet the district attorneys with jurisdiction over the plants have been unable to prosecute these foreign companies, and horses continue to be slaughtered. To end this situation, we must have a Federal law that prohibits sending horses within States, across State lines, or over our domestic borders for the purpose of slaughtering them for human consumption. We can effectively achieve this goal by passing the Virgie S. Arden American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate the horse slaughter trade--including intrastate shipment--because such trade has a substantial impact on interstate and international commerce. Horses are regularly moved across State lines to be slaughtered in the three remaining horse slaughter plants--one in Illinois--and the other two in Texas. Others are exported across the U.S. border to Canada and Mexico for slaughter there. Even the meat of slaughtered horses is eventually moved across State lines or our domestic borders for sale outside of the United States. Our bill will end this practice. I know that some people have expressed concerns about what will happen to horses if their slaughter is ended. Many of these horses will be sold to a new owner, kept longer by their original owner, or euthanized by a licensed veterinarian. Others will be cared for by the horse rescue community, and efforts are now underway to standardize practices in this ever-growing sector. Guidelines for these rescue organizations have been developed by the animal protection community and embraced by sanctuaries across the country. Some people have questioned whether this law will result in the abuse and neglect of unwanted horses. Thankfully, statistics do not support this claim at all. Recently released figures show that the number of abuse cases dropped significantly in Illinois from 2002 to 2004, the period in which the State's only horse slaughtering facility was closed due to fire. Also, since California passed a law banning the slaughter of horses for human consumption, there has been no discernible increase in cruelty and neglect cases in the state. Furthermore, it is currently illegal to ``turn out,'' neglect, or starve a horse, so this bill will not result in an increased number of orphaned horses in the United States. If a person attempts to turn his or her horses out, under current law, animal control agents will be able to enforce humane laws. As I stated before, this bill seeks only to end the slaughter of horses for human consumption. If a person wishes to put an animal down, it costs about $225 to have the horse euthanized by a licensed veterinarian and disposed of--a fraction of what it costs to keep a horse as a companion or a work animal. That cost is not too big a burden to bear when no other options are available. The time for a strong federal law ending this slaughter is now. This bill does not target other forms of slaughter, rendering, or euthanasia, rather it focuses solely on the slaughter of American horses for human consumption. The House version of this bill, H.R. 5031, currently has more than 120 cosponsors. Please join Senator Landrieu and me in cosponsoring the Virgie S. Arden American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise along with my colleagues, Senators Landrieu, Byrd, Specter, Lott, Lieberman, Inouye, Levin, and DeMint, in order to introduce the Virgie S. Arden American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. As a veterinarian, I am well aware of the love that Americans have for their horses. Much of our Nation's early history and culture is associated with these animals. We think of George Washington's horses and the legend of Paul Revere's ride and the Pony Express. More recently, we were reminded of how the Depression Era race between Seabiscuit and War Admiral raised the spirit of our Nation during desperate times. While horses in the United States are not raised for food, last year alone more than 65,000 horses were slaughtered in the United States for human consumption abroad. Tens of thousands more were transported to Canada and Mexico for slaughter there. Work horses, race horses, and even pet horses, many of them young and healthy, are slaughtered for human consumption in Europe and Asia, where the meat is sold as a high- end delicacy. Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly support an end to this practice. This sentiment was reflected in the Senate's recent 69-28 vote to prohibit the use of Federal funds to facilitate horse slaughter. The House of Representatives passed identical legislation by a similarly bipartisan vote in June. Often, owners who sell their horses at auction are unaware that their horses may well be on their way to one of the three remaining slaughterhouses in America where horses are killed for human consumption. These slaughterhouses are foreign-owned and the product is shipped abroad, as are the profits. While several States are attempting to address the concerns of citizens regarding the tens of thousands of horses going to slaughter each year, the absence of Federal law creates a loophole through which the slaughter can continue. Some States have prohibited the use of double-deck cattle trailers to move horses to slaughter. Texas, which is home to two of the three slaughter plants, has had a law in place since 1949 to effectively prohibit horse slaughter for human consumption. Yet the district attorneys with jurisdiction over the plants have been unable to prosecute these foreign companies, and horses continue to be slaughtered. To end this situation, we must have a Federal law that prohibits sending horses within States, across State lines, or over our domestic borders for the purpose of slaughtering them for human consumption. We can effectively achieve this goal by passing the Virgie S. Arden American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate the horse slaughter trade--including intrastate shipment--because such trade has a substantial impact on interstate and international commerce. Horses are regularly moved across State lines to be slaughtered in the three remaining horse slaughter plants--one in Illinois--and the other two in Texas. Others are exported across the U.S. border to Canada and Mexico for slaughter there. Even the meat of slaughtered horses is eventually moved across State lines or our domestic borders for sale outside of the United States. Our bill will end this practice. I know that some people have expressed concerns about what will happen to horses if their slaughter is ended. Many of these horses will be sold to a new owner, kept longer by their original owner, or euthanized by a licensed veterinarian. Others will be cared for by the horse rescue community, and efforts are now underway to standardize practices in this ever-growing sector. Guidelines for these rescue organizations have been developed by the animal protection community and embraced by sanctuaries across the country. Some people have questioned whether this law will result in the abuse and neglect of unwanted horses. Thankfully, statistics do not support this claim at all. Recently released figures show that the number of abuse cases dropped significantly in Illinois from 2002 to 2004, the period in which the State's only horse slaughtering facility was closed due to fire. Also, since California passed a law banning the slaughter of horses for human consumption, there has been no discernible increase in cruelty and neglect cases in the state. Furthermore, it is currently illegal to ``turn out,'' neglect, or starve a horse, so this bill will not result in an increased number of orphaned horses in the United States. If a person attempts to turn his or her horses out, under current law, animal control agents will be able to enforce humane laws. As I stated before, this bill seeks only to end the slaughter of horses for human consumption. If a person wishes to put an animal down, it costs about $225 to have the horse euthanized by a licensed veterinarian and disposed of--a fraction of what it costs to keep a horse as a companion or a work animal. That cost is not too big a burden to bear when no other options are available. The time for a strong federal law ending this slaughter is now. This bill does not target other forms of slaughter, rendering, or euthanasia, rather it focuses solely on the slaughter of American horses for human consumption. The House version of this bill, H.R. 5031, currently has more than 120 cosponsors. Please join Senator Landrieu and me in cosponsoring the Virgie S. Arden American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

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

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

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

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

Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent that we return to the consideration of Dorgan amendment No. 2133 for a moment.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of every person in America who owns property and to speak on behalf of everyone working toward the American dream of homeownership. That dream is being threatened today, and that threat comes from our own government and court system. Since the birth of our Nation, property ownership has been a fundamental and guarded right. The Founding Fathers went to great lengths to protect citizens from the heavy and greedy hand of government. This is why the Bill of Rights includes the fifth amendment's ``takings clause.'' Unfortunately, 200 years of upholding property rights was not enough to protect some Americans from the excessive use of government power. In Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that economic development was a sufficient reason to take a person's property. In this case, the city of New London, CT wanted to tear down private homes and redevelop private property into an industrial complex. It is important to understand that the city did not want to tear down these homes because the neighborhood was blighted. The city did not want to redevelop the property because the homes were being used by drug dealers. The homeowners were middle-class families living in a middle-class neighborhood. So why would the city want to redevelop these properties? City officials believed this would create jobs and increase the city's tax revenue. When the homeowners refused to sell to the city, the city began condemnation proceedings. The homeowners sued the city and argued that this ``taking'' violated their fifth amendment rights. The fifth amendment states that private property cannot be taken except for a ``public use'' and only then if the owners are justly compensated. The owners believed, as I do, that creating jobs and increasing tax revenue is not a public use. The Supreme Court, despite the plain meaning of the fifth amendment, ruled against the homeowners. As bad as that is, it gets worse for these homeowners. The city of New London is demanding that the homeowners, those who fought to protect their fifth amendment rights, must now pay back rent. For the Kelo family, that means $57,000 in rent owed to the city. This cannot be what the Founding Fathers intended when they adopted the Bill of Rights. The Kelo decision has highlighted a serious problem with how government has taken more power at the expense of the people. The Supreme Court's decision favors big corporations and persons with political clout over homeowners and regular people. Congress is partly to blame. Congress has created incentives for government to redevelop property in a never-ending quest for more and more tax dollars. New London, CT is the perfect example of these incentives. To Americans, the Kelo decision means that no matter how hard you work and no matter how hard you save, government can come in and take it all away from you. No person's home will be safe if Congress does not act to restore the fifth amendment. The property owners who lost their homes as a result of the Kelo decision paid their Federal taxes, paid their State taxes, and paid their local taxes. They played by the rules. Ironically, it was these taxes that made it possible for their government to steal their homes. As a result, Congress must step in to limit the use of Federal dollars. Just as our country's Founders sought to protect private property by amending the Constitution, I feel Congress must act to protect those rights. That is why I am introducing the Private Property Rights Protection Act, legislation to protect and preserve the American dream. This bill will curb government power and return it where it belongs, to the people.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the amendment to enhance the Free File Alliance. The Free File Alliance is a partnership between the Internal Revenue Service and the private technology industry. This voluntary program was created in 2002 after the IRS tried to create its own tax preparation software and e-filing program at the taxpayers' expense. Such a program would have needlessly duplicated the resources and investments of the private sector. Instead, the Free File Alliance came into being, helping preserve voluntary compliance. This Alliance provides free electronic tax preparation and e-filing services to lower income, disadvantaged and underserved taxpayers. In its first 3 years of existence, the Free File Alliance has donated some 10 million tax returns to American taxpayers and has helped significantly increase the number of e-filed tax returns. The success of this unique public-private partnership has been achieved at no cost to the taxpayers. This alliance has benefited the American public. It has allowed the IRS to focus its resources and efforts on its congressionally authorized mission and objectives. The budget simply does not have room for waste or duplication, and the Free File public-private partnership has met an urgent need in the most cost-effective way possible. There are long-standing program management issues that need to be corrected in the IRS oversight of the Free File program. For the first 3 years, the Service failed to make necessary management reforms. Congress has provided specific direction in terms of taxpayer protections, but the needed reforms have still not been put in place. This amendment is fully consistent with all of the previous Congressional direction. It provides that the IRS and the Department of Treasury do not waiver from this direction. It will also ensure that the IRS does not provide all aspects of tax functions, including tax preparation services. That kind of conflict of interest cannot ever be permitted. The American people expect us to look out for their interests in such matters, to ensure fairness and balance in the system, and to protect their rights to voluntary compliance. This amendment and accompanying report language should get the Free File program on track to achieve its intended purposes and objectives, and ensure that the IRS keeps its energies and resources focused on critical core missions, rather than spending precious public funds to try to expand them. This is a basic good government, taxpayer-focused measure, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. Notice of Intent

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of every person in America who owns property and to speak on behalf of everyone working toward the American dream of homeownership. That dream is being threatened today, and that threat comes from our own government and court system. Since the birth of our Nation, property ownership has been a fundamental and guarded right. The Founding Fathers went to great lengths to protect citizens from the heavy and greedy hand of government. This is why the Bill of Rights includes the fifth amendment's ``takings clause.'' Unfortunately, 200 years of upholding property rights was not enough to protect some Americans from the excessive use of government power. In Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that economic development was a sufficient reason to take a person's property. In this case, the city of New London, CT wanted to tear down private homes and redevelop private property into an industrial complex. It is important to understand that the city did not want to tear down these homes because the neighborhood was blighted. The city did not want to redevelop the property because the homes were being used by drug dealers. The homeowners were middle-class families living in a middle-class neighborhood. So why would the city want to redevelop these properties? City officials believed this would create jobs and increase the city's tax revenue. When the homeowners refused to sell to the city, the city began condemnation proceedings. The homeowners sued the city and argued that this ``taking'' violated their fifth amendment rights. The fifth amendment states that private property cannot be taken except for a ``public use'' and only then if the owners are justly compensated. The owners believed, as I do, that creating jobs and increasing tax revenue is not a public use. The Supreme Court, despite the plain meaning of the fifth amendment, ruled against the homeowners. As bad as that is, it gets worse for these homeowners. The city of New London is demanding that the homeowners, those who fought to protect their fifth amendment rights, must now pay back rent. For the Kelo family, that means $57,000 in rent owed to the city. This cannot be what the Founding Fathers intended when they adopted the Bill of Rights. The Kelo decision has highlighted a serious problem with how government has taken more power at the expense of the people. The Supreme Court's decision favors big corporations and persons with political clout over homeowners and regular people. Congress is partly to blame. Congress has created incentives for government to redevelop property in a never-ending quest for more and more tax dollars. New London, CT is the perfect example of these incentives. To Americans, the Kelo decision means that no matter how hard you work and no matter how hard you save, government can come in and take it all away from you. No person's home will be safe if Congress does not act to restore the fifth amendment. The property owners who lost their homes as a result of the Kelo decision paid their Federal taxes, paid their State taxes, and paid their local taxes. They played by the rules. Ironically, it was these taxes that made it possible for their government to steal their homes. As a result, Congress must step in to limit the use of Federal dollars. Just as our country's Founders sought to protect private property by amending the Constitution, I feel Congress must act to protect those rights. That is why I am introducing the Private Property Rights Protection Act, legislation to protect and preserve the American dream. This bill will curb government power and return it where it belongs, to the people.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of John Roberts' nomination for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The debate that the Senate will have this week is truly historic. In our Nation's history there have only been 16 previous Chief Justices. The opportunity to vote on a nomination for Chief Justice is a once-in-a- lifetime opportunity and should be undertaken with recognition of its importance. The importance of this vote simply cannot be overstated. I believe that our Nation is best served when we confirm individuals who appreciate that the role of a judge is not to make laws but to uphold the Constitution. We need judges who understand that their oath requires them to follow the Constitution and to apply the law in a modest fashion. Judges do not serve in the legislative branch. They should not make the law. As Senators, that is our job. Under our Constitution, judges are appointed to interpret the law. They should apply the law without prejudice. Judges must be open to the legal arguments presented by each of the parties before them. They must fully and fairly analyze the facts and faithfully apply the law. I have carefully considered John Roberts' record and his qualifications. I believe that his record reflects a proper understanding of the role of judges. I met with him and discussed face- to-face his views on the role of Supreme Court Justices. Judge Roberts possesses the highest intellect and integrity. He has also demonstrated that he is fair-minded. He possesses the necessary experience, as an attorney for the government, in private practice and as a judge, to serve on the high court. By any objective measure, John Roberts is qualified to sit on the bench, and he deserves to be confirmed. Judge Roberts, in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee and in his writings throughout his career, has presented himself as a man with a clear view of the role of a Supreme Court Justice: to interpret the law and to uphold the Constitution. His answers to specific questions have been necessarily and appropriately limited so we must trust, as we have with past nominees to the Court, that Judge Roberts is presenting himself and his views honestly. I believe he has, and for the sake of our country, I hope so. Today, throughout the judicial branch, judicial activism is impeding and restricting freedoms the American people should expect to enjoy as envisioned by our Nation's founders. Recent and significant rulings have established standards created not by elected Members of Congress but by activist judges. These rulings have infringed on Americans' rights to exercise their religious beliefs; to recite the Pledge of Allegiance; and to own property without fear that the Government might seize that property for economic gain. Now more than ever we need justices who will stand against this type of judicial activism, adhere to the proper role of upholding the Constitution, and leave the task of creating laws to the Congress. John Roberts is representing himself as someone who believes in a return to what our founders intended and we hope his portrayal of his views is honest and true. Historically, the Senate has confirmed a nominee when the nominee is found to be well qualified. John Roberts certainly meets this criterion. Historically, the Senate has based confirmation on a nominee's record, writings, and prior decisions. There is ample documentation on which my colleagues can make a decision with respect to John Roberts' nomination. And the documentation supports confirmation. John Roberts deserves to be confirmed, and America deserves a Chief Justice like John Roberts. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. ENSIGN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts that the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member have made on this legislation. They are working hard to help out the people who have been affected by Hurricane Katrina on the gulf coast. All of our hearts go out to the people in the gulf region. The devastation that region has experienced simply cannot be put into words. The issue we are considering tonight is not what kind of assistance should be provided to evacuees but how that assistance should be provided and whether this should be done by unanimous consent. The administration has taken administrative steps to provide necessary medical care to evacuees. They have provided Medicaid waivers to certain states. Secretary Leavitt has pledged additional waivers to states that request one if the request is reasonable. For its part, Congress has already approved $62 billion for the recovery of victims and their care. I am concerned that this bill involves new spending rather than reprogramming a part of the $62 billion Congress has already appropriated. This bill would add an additional $8.9 billion in spending on top of the money FEMA has already been given. We should make some changes to this bill. I have serious concerns about four provisions included in this bill. First, this bill provides for temporary expansion of Medicaid. Second, it requires that the federal government provide 100% FMAP for Louisiana, Mississippi and affected counties in Alabama. This is a dangerous precedent and removes any incentive for these states to keep Medicaid costs down. Third, it holds 29 states harmless from a scheduled FMAP reduction in 2006. This means the federal government continues to pay more of the costs, even in states with few or no Hurricane Katrina evacuees. My final concern is that this bill also increases spending by $8.9 billion and probably unnecessarily so given the steps that Congress and the Administration have already taken. Any legislative proposal should be well thought out and fiscally responsible. If these services can be provided administratively, which HHS says they can, we should allow HHS to do so. Congress does not, and should not, alter the Medicaid formula as this bill seeks to. We, as a Congress, need to get a better handle on the money being spent. We have an obligation to those affected by the hurricane as well as to those Americans we are asking to help pay the costs of relief. We must ensure this money is spent wisely. I object to the unanimous consent.

Mr. ENSIGN

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