John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to instruct the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office to employ dynamic scoring models, alongside static scoring when estimating the fiscal effect of tax policy changes. For too long, Congress has debated tax changes without considering how those changes might affect the economy. The current method, static scoring, assumes tax cuts or tax hikes have no effect on how taxpayers work, save and invest their money. Not surprisingly, experience shows this assumption is completely off-base. The idea that tax relief and investment incentives strengthen our economy is not new to the 21st Century. On April 15, 1986, President Reagan talked about the positive effect of tax relief on economic growth. He stated: Whatever you want to call it, supply side economics or incentive economics . . . it's launching the American economy into a new era of growth and opportunity . . . Our basic ingredients for a tax package have not changed: tax rate reductions, thresholds high enough so hard-working Americans aren't pushed relentlessly into higher brackets, some long- overdue tax relief for America's families, and investment incentives for business. . . What President Reagan stated so eloquently in 1986 holds true today. Economic growth is more easily achieved in an atmosphere where more Americans are able to save and invest their money. Tax relief provides economic growth, and when we draft legislation, we should understand not just the cost of tax relief to the Federal budget, but also the benefits that tax relief provides to the economy and the long-term increase in revenues to the federal government that tax relief can provide. The current static estimates that we use imply that tax policy changes have no effect on our economy, never produce higher or lower revenues and never cause resources to shift within our federal budget. This is simply incorrect. Tax policy changes can have a huge impact on our economy. The belief that tax policy changes directly impact our economy is not just a Republican ideal. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy remarked: It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Tax relief provides jobs and profits, no matter who is in the White House and no matter who holds the majority in Congress. It is time that Congress looks at the real world implications of our tax policy before we decide the overall cost and how much relief we can afford to give to American families. The debate on dynamic versus static scoring may sound like an inside- the-Beltway squabble, but as I have said today, the decision on how to estimate revenues does have important real world implications. For example, better revenue estimating methods would make it easier to implement tax rate reductions. This would put more money into the pockets of taxpayers, which would have a very real positive affect on our economy. Another example, shifting to a more simple, fair tax code would be less difficult if revenue estimators were allowed to consider the positive impact of tax reform on economic performance. Clearly a simplified tax code would affect each and every tax paying American. American families face the challenge of paying their tax burden; providing food, clothing and shelter for their children; and must work even harder to have money leftover so they can afford to pay their medical bills, enjoy a family vacation, save for education costs, or put money away for retirement. We know that when government takes money away from working families, it stifles growth. We also know that when the government gives money back to the working families that earned it, we encourage growth. I should clarify that this legislation does not negate the Congress' use of the currently used static scoring model. This bill simply directs OMB and the Joint Tax Committee to use both static and dynamic scoring. This will create a system that will allow Congress a slide-by-slide analysis of both scoring methods. In a Washington Post editorial on January 31, it was suggested that dynamic scoring could be useful as a way to present tax or spending policies as an additional alternative scenario. The editorial states that it would do no harm to the traditional way that CBO goes about its job to set up a dual scoring method. This is not, as some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have suggested, ``fantasyland scoring.'' By using both static and dynamic scoring methods, Mr. President, through time we will all understand which approach is more realistic, and only then, I believe, can we then confidently do away with the antiquated, unrealistic static model we use today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mandatory Prisoner Work and Drug Testing Act of 2003. This legislation is the continuation of work I did while in the House of Representatives to rein in the undeserved privileges that are currently given to Federal prisoners. Today's criminal justice system is failing, partly because of what happens, or more specifically, doesn't happen, once convicted criminals arrive in prison. What prisoners are doing is watching cable television, getting high on drugs, lifting weights, and learning to be better criminals. What they are not doing is working and paying back their victims. That's not justice. The purpose of the Mandatory Prisoner Work and Drug Testing Act is to help establish a Federal prison system that provides discipline and rehabilitation for our Nation's prisoners and requires that they make restitution to their victims. First, this legislation requires that all Federal prison inmates have a 50-hour work week. Job training, educational and life skills preparation study will also be mandated under this provision. Current federal law does not mandate a minimum work week for the 100,000 inmates in the Federal prison system. Sadly, the average workday for a prisoner in the United States is 6.8 hours. This is absolutely unacceptable. American taxpayers should not have to work full-time to provide rest and relaxation for our nation's prisoners. Federal prisoners would be paid for the work they do, but their pay would be divided and dispersed in the following manner: 25 percent would offset the cost of prisoner incarceration, 25 percent would go to victim restitution, 25 percent would be made available to the inmate for necessary costs of incarceration, 10 percent would be placed in a non-interest bearing account to be paid to the inmate upon release, and the remaining 15 percent would go to states and local jurisdictions that operate correctional facilities which have similar programs. Second, this legislation requires the Bureau of Prisons to establish a zero-tolerance policy for the use or possession of illegal contraband. A drug-free environment is essential to any hopes of rehabilitation for our federal prison inmates. Under these provisions, inmates would be subject to random searches and inspections for drugs not less than 12 times each year. Federal prisons would be required to offer residential drug treatment for all inmates. And finally, any employee hired to work in a federal prison would undergo a mandatory drug test, and all employees would be subject to random testing at least twice each year. I understand that many State and local prisons would also be interested in starting programs to get a drug-free prison, and for that reason have included a new grant program. Any State or unit of local government may apply for grants if they meet the same drug-testing requirements that are mandated for federal prisons under this legislation. Third, the Mandatory Prisoner Work and Drug Treatment Act includes a requirement that all inmates in the Federal prison system participate in a boot camp for not less than four weeks. This boot camp program would include strict discipline, physical training, and hard labor to deter crime and promote successful integration or reintegration of the offender into the prison community. Those prisoners that choose not to participate or are physically unable to participate are required to be confined to their cells for not less than 23 hours per day during the duration that they would otherwise be spending in this program and be allowed only those privileges that are granted under Federal law. These boot camps work. In fact, the Federal Bureau of Prisons already supports two such programs, one for men and one for women. These programs place inmates in highly structured, spartan environments where they undergo physical training and labor-intensive work assignments, coupled with education and vocational training, substance abuse treatment, and life skills programs. They focus on promoting positive changes in inmates' behavior, including responsible decision-making, self- direction and positive self-image. In fact, boot camps have worked so well that over 30 states now have them in place. Finally, this legislation will further restrict inmates' activities and possessions. Under this legislation inmates would not be allowed to possess or smoke tobacco, view or read pornographic or sexually explicit material, or view cable television that is not educational in nature. Inmates would not be allowed to possess microwave ovens, hot plates, toaster ovens, televisions, or VCRs. They would not be allowed to listen to music that contains lyrics that are violent, vulgar, sexually explicit, glamorize gang membership or activities, demean women, or disrespect law enforcement. We have to remember that these individuals are in Federal prison to be punished for a crime they committed. There is no reason for inmates to be given the same, or better, privileges than law-abiding citizens have. No one can tell me that an inmate has to have cable television when many law-abiding, taxpaying families cannot afford such a perk. We need to work to ensure that our nation's criminals understand the gravity of the crimes they committed. I understand that many of our nation's jails and prisons use activities like weight lifting as rewards for their inmates. My legislation does not restrict that kind of activity. This legislation simply states that it is no longer acceptable for our nation's inmates to leisurely go about their day instead of working to pay for the crimes they committed. It is time that our government send a clear message to the victims of these crimes that these criminals will pay, and that restitution, to the maximum extent possible, will be made. Quite simply, we need to stop the revolving doors of our prison system. A study released in June, 2002, by the U.S. Department of Justice found that among nearly 300,000 prisoners released in 15 states in 1994, 67.5 percent were rearrested within three years. It is my hope that if Federal prisoners were required to work and given drug treatment, instead of perks like cable television and weight training time, these individuals would be deterred from committing another crime and returning to prison. I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation and help me in getting it passed this year.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mandatory Prisoner Work and Drug Testing Act of 2003. This legislation is the continuation of work I did while in the House of Representatives to rein in the undeserved privileges that are currently given to Federal prisoners. Today's criminal justice system is failing, partly because of what happens, or more specifically, doesn't happen, once convicted criminals arrive in prison. What prisoners are doing is watching cable television, getting high on drugs, lifting weights, and learning to be better criminals. What they are not doing is working and paying back their victims. That's not justice. The purpose of the Mandatory Prisoner Work and Drug Testing Act is to help establish a Federal prison system that provides discipline and rehabilitation for our Nation's prisoners and requires that they make restitution to their victims. First, this legislation requires that all Federal prison inmates have a 50-hour work week. Job training, educational and life skills preparation study will also be mandated under this provision. Current federal law does not mandate a minimum work week for the 100,000 inmates in the Federal prison system. Sadly, the average workday for a prisoner in the United States is 6.8 hours. This is absolutely unacceptable. American taxpayers should not have to work full-time to provide rest and relaxation for our nation's prisoners. Federal prisoners would be paid for the work they do, but their pay would be divided and dispersed in the following manner: 25 percent would offset the cost of prisoner incarceration, 25 percent would go to victim restitution, 25 percent would be made available to the inmate for necessary costs of incarceration, 10 percent would be placed in a non-interest bearing account to be paid to the inmate upon release, and the remaining 15 percent would go to states and local jurisdictions that operate correctional facilities which have similar programs. Second, this legislation requires the Bureau of Prisons to establish a zero-tolerance policy for the use or possession of illegal contraband. A drug-free environment is essential to any hopes of rehabilitation for our federal prison inmates. Under these provisions, inmates would be subject to random searches and inspections for drugs not less than 12 times each year. Federal prisons would be required to offer residential drug treatment for all inmates. And finally, any employee hired to work in a federal prison would undergo a mandatory drug test, and all employees would be subject to random testing at least twice each year. I understand that many State and local prisons would also be interested in starting programs to get a drug-free prison, and for that reason have included a new grant program. Any State or unit of local government may apply for grants if they meet the same drug-testing requirements that are mandated for federal prisons under this legislation. Third, the Mandatory Prisoner Work and Drug Treatment Act includes a requirement that all inmates in the Federal prison system participate in a boot camp for not less than four weeks. This boot camp program would include strict discipline, physical training, and hard labor to deter crime and promote successful integration or reintegration of the offender into the prison community. Those prisoners that choose not to participate or are physically unable to participate are required to be confined to their cells for not less than 23 hours per day during the duration that they would otherwise be spending in this program and be allowed only those privileges that are granted under Federal law. These boot camps work. In fact, the Federal Bureau of Prisons already supports two such programs, one for men and one for women. These programs place inmates in highly structured, spartan environments where they undergo physical training and labor-intensive work assignments, coupled with education and vocational training, substance abuse treatment, and life skills programs. They focus on promoting positive changes in inmates' behavior, including responsible decision-making, self- direction and positive self-image. In fact, boot camps have worked so well that over 30 states now have them in place. Finally, this legislation will further restrict inmates' activities and possessions. Under this legislation inmates would not be allowed to possess or smoke tobacco, view or read pornographic or sexually explicit material, or view cable television that is not educational in nature. Inmates would not be allowed to possess microwave ovens, hot plates, toaster ovens, televisions, or VCRs. They would not be allowed to listen to music that contains lyrics that are violent, vulgar, sexually explicit, glamorize gang membership or activities, demean women, or disrespect law enforcement. We have to remember that these individuals are in Federal prison to be punished for a crime they committed. There is no reason for inmates to be given the same, or better, privileges than law-abiding citizens have. No one can tell me that an inmate has to have cable television when many law-abiding, taxpaying families cannot afford such a perk. We need to work to ensure that our nation's criminals understand the gravity of the crimes they committed. I understand that many of our nation's jails and prisons use activities like weight lifting as rewards for their inmates. My legislation does not restrict that kind of activity. This legislation simply states that it is no longer acceptable for our nation's inmates to leisurely go about their day instead of working to pay for the crimes they committed. It is time that our government send a clear message to the victims of these crimes that these criminals will pay, and that restitution, to the maximum extent possible, will be made. Quite simply, we need to stop the revolving doors of our prison system. A study released in June, 2002, by the U.S. Department of Justice found that among nearly 300,000 prisoners released in 15 states in 1994, 67.5 percent were rearrested within three years. It is my hope that if Federal prisoners were required to work and given drug treatment, instead of perks like cable television and weight training time, these individuals would be deterred from committing another crime and returning to prison. I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation and help me in getting it passed this year.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Nevada, my colleague, Mr. Reid, for all of the work he has done in helping us shepherd the nomination of Jay Bybee through this nomination process for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Without his help, with the way things are around here, we know this would not be happening today. That would be a shame because Jay Bybee is incredibly qualified. Everybody who has ever been associated with him understands that. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to my colleagues about a man of the highest legal distinction, Mr. Jay Bybee. Mr. Bybee's experience and background, and his unquestioned dedication to the fair application of the law, make him an ideal nominee for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As many of you know, Mr. Bybee appeared before this body in 2001 as a nominee to serve as Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. He was confirmed unanimously by the Senate on October 23, 2001. As head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jay assists the Attorney General in his role as legal advisor to the President and all the executive branch agencies. The Office is also responsible for providing legal advice to the executive branch on all constitutional questions and reviewing pending legislation for constitutionality. Though a native of the chairman's home State of Utah, Nevada is proud to claim Jay as one of its own. Before his confirmation in the Senate in 2001, Mr. Bybee joined the founding faculty and served as a Professor of Law at the William Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Mr. Bybee's scholarly interests have focused in the areas of constitutional and administrative law. His dedication to ensuring that young law students learn the highest standards of legal practice resulted in his being named the Professor of the Year in 2000. Mr. Bybee is known throughout the legal community as one of the foremost constitutional law scholars in the United States. He is regarded as extremely fair minded and adheres to the highest ethical and professional standards. He is admired throughout the legal profession as both a leader and a gentleman. Most importantly, Jay understands the rule of law, and will consistently and carefully consider the arguments on both sides of a legal question with an open mind. Because of Jay's combination of his legal skills along with his commitment to fairness, I have no doubts that he will serve in the best traditions of the federal judiciary. If confirmed, Mr. Bybee's service will be an invaluable asset to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As you are aware, the Ninth Circuit is facing an overwhelming caseload, and the seat that Mr. Bybee has been nominated is designated as a ``judicial emergency'' by the Judiciary Conference of the United States. Caseloads in the entire federal court system, including in the Ninth Circuit, continue to grow dramatically. Filings in the federal appeals court reached an all time high again last year. The Chief Justice recently warned that the alarming number of vacancies, combined with the rising number of caseloads, threatens the proper functioning of the federal courts. The American Bar Association has called the situation an ``emergency.'' There are currently four vacancies in the 28-judge court of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, with one more vacancy already announced effective in November 2003. The Judicial Conference has asked for two new permanent and three temporary seats on the Ninth Circuit, just to cope with the caseload. That brings the total to 33 judges that are needed just to handle the caseload on the Ninth Circuit. Today there are only 24 judges doing the job of 33. This situation has to change. That is why it is extremely important that the Senate approve the nomination of Jay Bybee today, and that the Senate continue to consider each one of the President's judicial nominations as quickly as possible. I would like to thank the chairman and the entire Judiciary Committee and their staff for their hard work in shepherding this nominee through the process. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote in support of Jay Bybee's appointment to the Ninth Circuit today. Mr. President, I first met Jay Bybee a few years ago. I had previously heard some great things from people in the community of southern Nevada about this legal scholar out at the new UNLV Boyd School of Law. I wanted to sit down and meet with him, to talk to him, and just pick his brain about the Constitution. I am a veterinarian by profession, so I am not a lawyer and did not attend law school as many of our colleagues have. I thought, the more I could learn from scholars such as Jay Bybee, the educated I would be and therefore the better Senator I would be. We sat down for over an hour. I could have stayed there all day. He has a fascinating mind. He has incredible knowledge of the Constitution, of this nation's history and of case law. When I first was elected to the Senate, because President Bush had been elected I knew it would come upon me to recommend judges for the State of Nevada. I didn't have many ties in the legal community, so I had to look to Nevadans on whom I could count on for advice. One of the people I went to was Jay Bybee. He helped me tremendously in the interview process. I actually felt sorry for the people who were coming before us because of the difficulty and depth of the questions Jay Bybee would ask them. It was because of that experience, when this process came forward, that I sent his name to the White House. When the White House began to consider Jay Bybee, they realized immediately what a talent he is. That is why the Attorney General's Office took him away from the Boyd School of Law, to the position he is now in, in the Attorney General's Office. He advises the Attorney General on constitutional matters. That is how much they think of his constitutional expertise. At the Boyd School of Law, and in the legal community in Nevada, there is nobody more highly thought of as a constitutional expert than Jay Bybee--both liberals and conservatives. They understand his expertise and the way he looks at law. Literally, I have talked to students from the far left end of the political spectrum to the far right end of the political spectrum, and they all talk about him with glowing remarks. It is truly amazing. I think it tells a lot to his character and a lot to his intellect. I think he has the right tools intellectually, the right temperament and the right character to serve on the 9th Circuit. He has all the qualifications we want for someone to be on the Ninth Circuit--and especially the Ninth Circuit, the most controversial circuit we have in the United States. As you know, this is the circuit that just ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, and this body voted unanimously to condemn that and say we do not agree with that interpretation. The Ninth Circuit needs help. We need qualified judges to give that help. Jay Bybee is exactly the kind of person we need to the 9th Circuit. There are currently four vacancies on the Ninth Circuit, and soon to be a fifth. The Judicial Conference recently also requested two new permanent judges and three temporary judges. They have a huge crisis on the Ninth Circuit because there are so many backlogged cases. It has been said on this floor: Justice delayed is justice denied. That is what is happening in the Ninth Circuit. So it is important to approve Jay Bybee's nomination today, and to begin our work to appoint other judges to fill those vacancies I mentioned. It is my hope that we can get the new judgeships approved through this body so the Ninth Circuit can catch up on their caseload. So enthusiastically, Mr. President, I recommend that we vote to confirm this outstanding nominee, Jay Bybee. He is a great family man. He will make a great judge. And he will be there for a long time, God willing, having a positive influence on the Ninth Circuit. With that, I once again thank the senior Senator from Nevada. I also thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his work in getting Jay Bybee's nomination to the floor. We appreciate all the indulgences. I know the Chairman has to constantly answer to each individual Senator, and we can be kind of a pain sometimes, but we sure appreciate the work done in getting Jay Bybee's nomination to this day when we can finally get him confirmed. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I will spend a little time today talking about the amendment. But I also want to talk about the underlying bill. This is an incredibly emotional issue for people across America. It is an incredibly emotional issue for people in this body. There truly are good people on both sides of this issue. I believe the people who support abortion are wrong. Those who support abortion look at myself and others on this side of the issue, and think that we are wrong. But I do not look at the other side, and think that the people are evil or that they have evil intentions. I just think that they are not seeing the truth about what abortion truly is. To talk about the bill itself: it has been described--it cannot be described too often, what a so-called partial-birth abortion really is; a D&X procedure--whatever you want to call it. So let me describe that. I am a veterinarian by profession, so I understand a little bit about surgery and medical procedures. When I read through this particular procedure, it is amazing to me, as a health care worker, how any physician or any nurse could participate in this procedure and not be horrified. What happens is a woman goes in the first day, and she has some local anesthetic put on her cervix. Then she has some clips put on that will help her dilate. She comes in the next day; same procedure; it helps her dilate some more. The third day she comes in, she is treated with some medication, including pitocin, which is something to help--just like when a woman is having trouble delivering--it helps to stimulate the birthing process, to put it in the simplest of terms. While the woman is on that drug, they use an ultrasound to look at the woman's abdomen; to look inside the uterus. Looking at the ultrasound picture, the doctor can insert a clamp--basically some forceps--to grab one of the legs of the baby. The baby is in there, moving around. This ultrasound allows them to grip one of the baby's legs and not grab part of the uterus, because obviously that would be very dangerous to the woman. As he or she grabs that leg, they then pull it down into the birth canal. That one leg then comes out of the cervix. The physician then takes one of his other fingers and grabs the other leg and brings them, both of the legs, down. Once into the birth canal, the doctor kind of wriggles them down a little bit and gets them to where (this would be the back of the baby) everything except the head--the head is still inside what is called the cervical os, and at that point the head is usually too large to come down. That is the point where the physician puts his fingers around this little--I will call it what it is. They call it a fetus, but it is a little human being, whether you call it a fetus or baby or whatever you call it. It is a little human being. This little human being is alive. You can feel it. You can feel the heart beating. You can feel movement in the legs. There is no question that the person who is performing this procedure can feel life in their hands. As he puts his fingers around there, he brings usually a pair of Metzenbaum scissors, a kind of curved scissor, around the back and has to make sure he doesn't cut the cervix, so he has to elevate the cervix away from the baby's skull. Then right at the back of the baby's skull he inserts some kind of a forceps, usually the scissors, and makes an opening right at the back of the skull; then he will slide an instrument in that will suck the baby's brains out. Try to imagine this. You have this little baby in your hands, and you are going to suck that brain out. As you do, you will feel the life go out of that little baby. Anybody who can listen to what is done in this procedure and say that as a civilized country we should allow this to go on--it boggles my mind. At that point, the skull collapses and the baby is allowed to be delivered. In our society, under our current laws, if for some reason that cervix dilated a little more and this baby, while it was being brought down, slipped out, came fully out, this doctor who performed that same procedure, now, this much farther down--that would be considered murder under our laws. So this procedure really is a question of distance. We are 3 inches away from murder by our own laws. If the baby is 3 inches up the birth canal, it is just an abortion. Three inches down, it is considered murder. This procedure is infanticide. A civilized society should never allow this kind of thing to go on. That is why we need to ban it. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reports that--we have heard the exception for the health of the mother. For the life of the mother, we all agree. If it is the life of the mother, you can't have them both live, so you have to choose. But at 15 to 16 weeks of gestation, that is the point at which an abortion becomes more dangerous than childbirth. Partial-birth abortion generally happens after 20 weeks of gestation. We have heard that we need to have exceptions for the mother's health. Abortionists say that if the language that was proposed earlier is passed, they would be able to use that language ``health of the mother'' to be able to perform an abortion any time, any place, at any month of pregnancy, and use this procedure. It would be allowed. That is why the health of the mother exception we keep hearing about is such a bogus argument. It is healthier for the mother to allow it, the baby, to reach full gestation. In the terrible case of what is called an anencephalic baby, one which is born with not enough neural tissue to develop, we know they are going to die a very short period of time after they are born; it is safer for the mother to have that child. I would even argue that it is safer for them from a mental health standpoint. It is part of the grieving process we need to go through when we lose a child, just holding that child. To just dismember it, or suck out its little neuro tissue, and deliver it that way can be worse for the mental health of the mother than actually allowing it to go full term, and then to go through the normal grieving process. All the mental health professionals tell us that denying mental grieving processes can actually be worse for people. I think the health arguments are really not very good arguments. I think they are weak on their merits. It is just impossible to justify the type of things that go on with this procedure. We really should be banning it. I appreciate the sponsor of the bill for the work he has done on this, and leading this country, I believe, in the right direction. I want to make a couple of other comments on the underlying amendment, which is an amendment talking about Roe v. Wade. Once again, really good people disagree on this issue. They look at it differently. I am the father of three. Actually, with my third child, the doctor didn't get there on time, and I, along with the nurse, delivered our third child. We could see him on the ultrasound throughout the process. Just being through the miracle of childbirth when every one of my children was born, I cried like a little baby. I didn't know which one was crying harder, the baby when it came out, or the father. Appreciation for life is so important, I believe, in society. I think the whole idea of abortion has degraded the value of life in our society. We need to get back to valuing life. Life is so precious. We cannot take it for granted. While I don't want to say anything against somebody else who feels or believes differently on the other side; if you really believe it is a baby, then we shouldn't be taking that innocent life. We should value it instead. I believe it is a baby from the time of conception. I believe that what we should be protecting are the babies, as human beings. If you know anything about embryology--obviously veterinarians study a lot of embryology. Physicians study it, nurses, and any health care professional studies embryology. When a human being is conceived, it is not going to be anything but a human being. When you see the embryological picture, they may look like something else early on, but they are fully human. The full human chromosome complement is there from the time of conception. It isn't something that is added later. It is just in a different stage of development. It is very analogous to how my 5-year-old is at a different stage of development than that of my 11-year-old. They are both fully human, but they are at a different stage of development. A 1-month-old baby is not capable of taking care of itself. It is in a different stage of development than an adult. An 18-week or 16-week or 14-week human being in the womb is just at a different stage of development. If we learn to protect and value human life, I would submit we would be better off as a country. I think this debate gets too personal because we don't give credit to each side for having legitimate feelings on this issue sometimes. I respect people on the other side of this issue. I disagree with them, but I respect them. I hope more and more people will form relationships with people on both sides of this issue so that more and more dialog can happen and we can sit down together and try to look at this issue for what it really is. I believe that if we start seeing ourselves as children of God, that we, in the long run, will value human life, and some day we will stop abortion from happening in America. I thank the author of this bill. I thank him for all of his great work on this. I consider him a great friend and a great American for doing this. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President. I rise today with my colleagues Senator Boxer, Senator Smith, Senator Allen, Senator Enzi and Senator Bayh to introduce The Invest in the U.S.A. Act of 2003 to stimulate job growth and investment in the American economy. Under current tax law, American companies doing business overseas are discouraged from bringing their earnings back home because those earnings are subject to up to a 35-percent rate of taxation. Specifically, our government imposes taxes on American companies when its foreign subsidiary earnings are brought back to the United States, to the extent of any shortfall in the tax paid abroad and the 35- percent U.S. tax rate. Therefore, many businesses do the math and conclude that it would be more beneficial to invest 100 percent of those earnings abroad than it would be to bring the funds home to be reinvested in the American economy. Our proposal is a sensible, fiscally responsible way to provide immediate investment in the American economy. Specifically, the Invest in the U.S.A. Act bill will allow domestic corporations doing business abroad to bring their foreign earnings home by imposing a 5.25-percent toll tax on dividends in excess of normal distributions for only one year. Companies must reinvest these funds in the United States in an approved investment plan to take advantage of the lowered rate. Finally, domestic shareholders would permanently surrender the right to claim foreign tax credits for 85 percent of foreign income taxes associated with dividends subject to the 5.25-percent tax, as well as exclude 85 percent of income subject to the 5.25-percent tax from the calculation of the foreign tax credit limitation ensuring that no American company will be taxed less than 5.25 percent. Lowering the tax burden on foreign subsidiary income for a limited time will open the floodgates for privately held foreign funds to be brought back into the American economy to provide immediate economic stimulus. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Invest in the U.S.A. Act will not only increase receipts to the U.S. Treasury in the first year by $4.1 billion but also inject an additional $135 billion of privately held funds into the U.S. economy that will be an immediate stimulus to our economy at a cost of only $3.9 billion over 10 years--less than 3 percent of the overall gain this legislation will have to the American economy. These funds can be used to create more jobs for American workers, solidify corporate pension and retirement funds, invest in manufacturing equipment and research and development, and reduce domestic debt loads thereby increasing employee and shareholder dividends. American jobs depend on American companies, and this proposal will accomplish that objective. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President. I rise today with my colleagues Senator Boxer, Senator Smith, Senator Allen, Senator Enzi and Senator Bayh to introduce The Invest in the U.S.A. Act of 2003 to stimulate job growth and investment in the American economy. Under current tax law, American companies doing business overseas are discouraged from bringing their earnings back home because those earnings are subject to up to a 35-percent rate of taxation. Specifically, our government imposes taxes on American companies when its foreign subsidiary earnings are brought back to the United States, to the extent of any shortfall in the tax paid abroad and the 35- percent U.S. tax rate. Therefore, many businesses do the math and conclude that it would be more beneficial to invest 100 percent of those earnings abroad than it would be to bring the funds home to be reinvested in the American economy. Our proposal is a sensible, fiscally responsible way to provide immediate investment in the American economy. Specifically, the Invest in the U.S.A. Act bill will allow domestic corporations doing business abroad to bring their foreign earnings home by imposing a 5.25-percent toll tax on dividends in excess of normal distributions for only one year. Companies must reinvest these funds in the United States in an approved investment plan to take advantage of the lowered rate. Finally, domestic shareholders would permanently surrender the right to claim foreign tax credits for 85 percent of foreign income taxes associated with dividends subject to the 5.25-percent tax, as well as exclude 85 percent of income subject to the 5.25-percent tax from the calculation of the foreign tax credit limitation ensuring that no American company will be taxed less than 5.25 percent. Lowering the tax burden on foreign subsidiary income for a limited time will open the floodgates for privately held foreign funds to be brought back into the American economy to provide immediate economic stimulus. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Invest in the U.S.A. Act will not only increase receipts to the U.S. Treasury in the first year by $4.1 billion but also inject an additional $135 billion of privately held funds into the U.S. economy that will be an immediate stimulus to our economy at a cost of only $3.9 billion over 10 years--less than 3 percent of the overall gain this legislation will have to the American economy. These funds can be used to create more jobs for American workers, solidify corporate pension and retirement funds, invest in manufacturing equipment and research and development, and reduce domestic debt loads thereby increasing employee and shareholder dividends. American jobs depend on American companies, and this proposal will accomplish that objective. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to come before the Senate to lend my support to a man of tremendous character and extraordinary legal credentials, Mr. Miguel Estrada. We have heard a lot about this nominee. We have heard a lot about why we should be focusing, why we shouldn't. As I discussed before, I would like to see us get on to things like the economy, like the budget. The simplest way to do that is to have an up-or-down vote on Miguel Estrada. I will share a few facts about Mr. Estrada and the importance of the nomination to our legal system. Mr. Estrada is an American success story. He came to this country at the age of 17 as an immigrant from Honduras, speaking very little English. He overcame amazing obstacles to rise to the top of the legal profession. After graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, Miguel became a law clerk to the Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Since that time, he served as a Federal prosecutor in New York and Assistant Solicitor General of the United States for 1 year in the Bush Administration and 4 years in the Clinton administration. He was handed nothing, and his achievements are the product of hard work, perseverance, and a commitment to education. He is actually living the American dream. Among other accomplishments, Mr. Estrada has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, including one case in which he represented a death row inmate pro bono. The American Bar Association unanimously rated Mr. Estrada as well qualified for the DC Circuit. This is the ABA's highest possible rating, and the rating typically used as the gold standard for judicial nominees in the Senate Judiciary Committee, especially on the Democrat side. Mr. Estrada served as a member of the Solicitor General's Office in both the Bush and Clinton administrations. He is enthusiastically supported by both President Bush and President Clinton. The long list of Hispanic groups backing Miguel Estrada's nomination includes the League of United Latin American Citizens, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Latino Coalition, the Hispanic Bar Association, and the National Association of Small Disadvantaged Businesses. Sadly, Mr. Estrada's extraordinary accomplishments and his desire to serve our country have not been enough to protect him from the baseless, vicious, and partisan attacks he has endured through this process. Now is not the time to play partisan games with the United States judicial system. America is facing a judicial vacancy crisis in our Federal courts. The U.S. Courts of Appeals are currently 15 percent vacant, with 25 vacancies out of 167 authorized seats. The DC court, which is the court we are trying to get Miguel Estrada onto, has four vacancies on a 12-judge court. Adding to this crisis, caseloads in the Federal courts continue to grow dramatically. Filings in the Federal appeals court reached an all- time high last year. The Chief Justice recently warned that the current number of vacancies, combined with the rising caseloads, threatens the proper functioning of the Federal courts. He has asked the Senate to provide every nominee with a prompt up-or-down vote. Chief Rehnquist is right. Every judicial nominee deserves a prompt hearing and a chance at an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. This nominee is not being assessed by the traditional standards of quality or by his ability to follow the law as a judge. There is no question that this nomination is being delayed and possibly blocked because of a distorted analysis of his qualifications, policies, and personal views. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are blocking this nomination simply because he is President Bush's nominee. This is a detriment to the integrity of this body. It is unfair to the nominee. And it is unfair to the American people. I am asking my colleagues in the Senate today to do what we were elected to do, to allow this body to work its will, and to give Mr. Estrada the up-or-down vote he deserves. I add that the precedent we are setting, this 60-vote threshold for circuit court nominees, is a dangerous precedent. Right now the Republicans are in the majority and we have the Presidency. At some point the Democrats are going to be back in the majority. At some point the Democrats are going to hold the Presidency again. Paybacks are very ugly. But make no mistake about it, with the precedent being set here, unless this can be worked out, those paybacks will come back to haunt the other side of the aisle. It is vitally important we work this out for the health of the judiciary in this country. It should not become a political tool to be bandied about just because somebody thinks that somebody may have a particular ideology. We realize that having a Republican Hispanic on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is something the other side does not like. But just because they don't like the politics of that does not mean that they should object to him getting on the court. He deserves this. He is qualified for it. He has the integrity to carry it out. And we, as a body, should give this man an up-or-down vote. If we give him an up-or-down vote he will be confirmed by the Senate. I believe it is our constitutional duty to give him an up-or-down vote. He has had all the hearings he needs to have. We have been doing this for almost 2 years now. We need to give this well-qualified candidate the vote he deserves. I want to raise a couple of points. The Senator from New Jersey was talking about the economy. He says we have to get on the economy. I agree, we need to take care of the economy. I have some proposals. The President has some proposals. There are going to be other Senators who will have proposals to try to stimulate the economy. The Senator from New Jersey indicated he doesn't think what the President is doing is going to have enough of an impact. I have a proposal that actually, the first year alone, according to the Joint Tax Committee, will bring $135 billion worth of investment into this country. I hope the other side of the aisle is going to join us in that. That is significant even in the size economy that we have. What the President has laid out as part of his plan--I don't agree with all of it, but there are some good things in it. He has laid out a plan, not only for this year but for solid growth and, in future years, to have good, solid, long-term fiscal policy and long-term growth. I agree with some of the things the other side of the aisle is talking about with respect to budget deficits. We do have a problem in the outyears with budget deficits. But if we do not fix the economy, we know we will never fix the deficits. We will continue to go further and further into debt. That is why it is critical for us to fix the economy, so we produce more tax revenues so we don't have these huge deficits and threats to Medicare and threats to Social Security and threats to our defense spending in the future. We have proven here in Washington, DC, we can't cut spending. We can maybe slow down the rate of growth sometimes, but we can't cut spending. As Ronald Reagan talked about--I don't remember the exact quote, but as he said in the early 1980s: The best way to eternal life is to become a Federal agency or department in Washington. He said that because he realized once a program starts, it develops a constituency and it is impossible to cut it. So I believe if the other side is concerned about the deficit, they should join some of us on this side of the aisle and start cutting out some of the waste and overspending in certain parts of our Government. Having said that, let me conclude by saying let's have an up-or-down vote on Miguel Estrada so we can get on to some of the other important issues. Make no mistake about it, though; the judiciary and this part of what we do is a very important part of our role as Senators in fulfilling our obligation, our oath of obligation to defend and support the Constitution. We can get on to other things. The budget was not enacted last year. For the first time since 1974 we did not have a budget. Because of that, we ended up with some serious problems last year. The appropriations bills didn't get finished until just a couple of weeks ago. We are asking the other side to not continue to obstruct the will and the work of this body, to join us, have an up-or-down vote, let the Senate work its will on this nomination so we can get on to other important business of the country. We have a lot of things to do. Let's join together. Let's work across the aisle. Let's join hands. There are a lot of good things we can do for the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN. Reserving the right to object, the way to resolve the nomination is to schedule an up-or-down vote. I object.

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

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution expressing the grave concern of the United States Senate over the horrific human rights conditions in Cuba under the regime of Fidel Castro, and calling on the international community to take concrete steps to help the peaceful dissidents in Cuba who are pressing for democratic change, and being brutally repressed as a result. The American and Cuban peoples share many things in common--a love of freedom, a fierce spirit of independence, and a desire that our two nations will one day live as friends and neighbors in a hemisphere where the scourge of tyranny has been eradicated. There is one obstacle to the common aspirations of our two peoples-- Fidel Castro. And because of him, our peoples share one more thing in common. Both of our countries have had innocent civilians killed on his orders by his brutal security apparatus. Seven years ago, on this day, February 24, Cuban MIG fighters confronted three planes flying in international airspace by members of Brothers to the Rescue, a group whose principal mission was to search for rafters in the Florida Straits risking their lives to escape Castro's oppression. Three planes left. Only one plane returned. The other two--unarmed Cessnas--were shot down on the direct orders of Fidel Castro. Three American citizens and one legal resident were murdered in cold blood. Here is how the Organization of American States Inter-American Commission on Human Rights described the incident: ``The Cuban Air Force never notified nor warned the civil small aircraft, did not attempt to make use of other methods of interception, and never gave them the opportunity to land. The first and only response of the MIGs was the international destruction of the civil aircraft and of their four occupants.'' This event seven years ago shocked our nation. But for Cubans living in Castro's tropical gulag, this sort of brutality is not shocking in the least--it is their every day reality. And so we introduce this resolution today to express our solidarity with the families of the victims who perished that day, to be sure. However, we also do it to show our solidarity with all those still suffering in Fidel Castro's Cuba--and those brave dissidents who risk their lives each day to press for freedom, democracy and rule of law. Leonardo Miguel Bruzon Avila, is one such dissident. He is president of the 24th of February Movement and is being held without trial by the Castro regime. His crime? Planning peaceful public ceremonies to commemorate the shoot-down of the Brothers to the Rescue planes. It is a travesty that more than a decade after the Cold War has ended, a brutal communist dictator is still oppressing people in our hemisphere. Castro's Cuba is like a modern day Jurassic Park--a lost island, where the political dinosaurs of an earlier era still roam, leaving death and destruction in their wake. Our challenge, our mission, is to help the Cuban people escape--to join the 21st century as a free nation. For some reason, there are still those who see Castro as a romantic revolutionary. It is an image he works hard to promote. But there is nothing romantic about life in Castro's Cuba. Thus, it is important to call attention to the reality of the conditions he imposes on his people. The UN, the OAS, the EU, and non governmental organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have done this, but exposing the truth is only the first step. This resolution calls on these entities to do more, because the situation in Cuba is not improving--it is deteriorating. Amnesty International's 2002 report notes an increase in human rights violations, including short-term arbitrary arrests, threats, summonses, evictions, interrogations, losses of employment, restrictions on travel, and house arrests directed by the government against political dissidents, independent journalists, and other activists in an effort to limit their ability to exercise fundamental freedoms. No one who disagrees with the Castro brothers' communist dictatorship can live peacefully in Cuba. No one who loves liberty is allowed to flourish. No one who dares to speak out against the Castro government's brutality and repression is permitted to remain free. And once imprisoned, Cuban political prisoners are deliberately exposed to harm and poor conditions as a means of punishment, including beatings, denial of medical treatment, forced labor against medical advise, and coexistence with inmates carrying highly infectious diseases. It is critical that we send a message--to Fidel Castro and the world--that we know what is happening under his rule. And we must make sure these peaceful freedom fighters know they are not forgotten. Natan Sharansky tells the story about his time in the Soviet gulag, when word came that President Reagan had called the Soviet Union an ``Evil Empire.'' The Soviet press had reprinted his remarks, as evidence of his anti-Soviet attitudes. But for the prisoners in the Soviet gulag, it was the first sign that they had not been forgotten-- that the leader of the world's most powerful democracy had no illusions about the true nature of that regime--that he knew of their plight and was ready to call the Soviet system what is was--evil. He spoke about how Reagan and Senator Scoop Jackson became beacons of light to all the political prisoners through the long days and nights of their struggle against the Soviet Union. He said Jackson and Reagan knew the value of freedom and they understood the nature of totalitarian evil. They inspired all of the dissidents with their integrity, their values, and their courage. With this resolution, we send a signal to all the dissidents and political prisoners in Cuba--that we have no illusions about the nature of Fidel Castro's regime--that we know of their plight and stand ready to help them. Specifically, this resolution highlights the plight of eight Cuban dissidents who are currently in jail: Oscar Elias Biscet, Bernardo Arevalo Padron, Carlos Oquendo Rodriguez, Francisco Chaviano Gonzalez, Juan Carlos Gonzales Leiva, Leonardo Miguel Bruzon Avila, Nestor Rodriguez Lobaina and Jorge Luis Garica Perez. Unfortunately, as the resolution makes, clear, there are many other political prisoners, charged with the same offenses, enduring the same horrible fate. It is my hope that by engaging the help of the international community, we will improve their condition, secure their release, and eliminate the harassment of human rights activists in the future. Castro and his cronies must know that the world is watching; that Cuba will remain an international pariah until the human rights situation dramatically improves. And those suffering under the jackboot of his oppression must know that we are watching--and that we will not rest and will not tire and will keep working to support them until they are finally free.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, 194 years ago this week, a son was born to Nancy and Thomas Lincoln in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. That son, Abraham, would go on to become President of the United States at one of the most defining times in our Nation's history. President Lincoln is still revered today for his leadership and vision of a country in which all citizens have the opportunity to succeed. In 1864, when the outcomes of the war and his re-election were in question, he asked soldiers from Ohio's 66th regiment to stop at the White House on their way home so he could express his appreciation. President Lincoln shared with them the following: ``I beg you to remember this . . . I happen temporarily to occupy this big White House. I am a living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my father's child has. It is in order that each of you may have through this free government which we have enjoyed, an open field and a fair chance for your industry, enterprise and intelligence; that you may all have equal privileges in the race of life, with all its desirable human aspirations. It is for this the struggle would be maintained, that we may not lose our birthright . . . The nation is worth fighting for, to secure such an inestimable jewel.'' That jewel--the American dream that should be within reach of all who grasp for it--has been the hope of generations in this nation. This Nation that elected Abraham Lincoln--born in a one-room log cabin and once a farmhand . . . This Nation that harvests in its children a yearning to soar beyond the earth's atmosphere . . . This Nation that preaches that education, hard work, and family bring success. Unfortunately, making a living, raising a family, and educating ourselves and our children is becoming more and more difficult in America. And it's the leaders of this nation that have made the obstacles to success higher to get over and wider to get around. Here in Washington, we've built a wall of obstacles with one tax burden after another. Our Founding Fathers outlined exactly the powers they wanted Congress to have in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Just because the first thing listed is the power to lay and collect taxes, doesn't mean it's the power we need to exercise the most. Not only should we take the responsibility of stopping the building of this wall of tax burdens, we need to step up and start removing these burdens. We need to alleviate the tremendous stress that comes with having to work to pay so much of what we earn to the government. Last year, the average taxpayer in my home State of Nevada did not finish paying taxes until April 27, which was also the average across the United States. Everything earned for the first 117 days of the year went to a government entity. In comparison, the average American spends only 106 days paying for food, clothing, and shelter combined. That doesn't leave enough days to pay for a family vacation or to save for education or to pay medical bills or to save for retirement or to take a class to improve skills or to do whatever you want with your money--after all, it is your money. In itself, our tax system is unfair because American families have to work harder to make more money only to pay greater taxes, and workers bear the burden of a government that continues to find ways to tax them into working even harder. Whatever our individual thoughts are on tax relief, we must agree that, although being taxed has become a challenging part of life, the idea of being double taxed is truly the government stealing from working Americans. Double taxation is immoral. Think about it in terms of a parent teaching a child. I am a parent of three young children. Just as I would explain to my children that it is not all right to take a piece of candy that they have not paid for, I would also tell them it is absolutely not okay to charge someone for something they aren't getting. But that is exactly what our government is doing with the Social Security tax. Time magazine recently called it ``The Really Unfair Tax.'' I call it the Social Security double dip. The take-home pay of 100 million Americans is fodder for this gutsy government scam. In very simple terms, this means that when a family pays income tax, the portion that is withheld for Social Security--money that they never see--is calculated into their personal income. The first dip is the tax that workers pay on wage income. The second dip is the icing on the cake for the government--taxing money that they are already taking anyway. Working Americans are forced to pay income tax on their Social Security tax. It is textbook double taxation, and if a business concocted such a scheme it would be shut down. How can we continue this policy if we would teach our children that it is wrong? This is only one reason why the tax is unfair. Another example of the outrageousness of this tax is that while working families are double taxed, American businesses are not. You see, half the Social Security tax is paid by workers, but employers pay the other half. Businesses and corporations get to deduct what they pay in Social Security taxes--a savings that working families are not afforded. This tax discrimination is unacceptable. We must eliminate this absolutely wrong tax policy that mocks our Constitution's goal to ``promote the general Welfare.'' I propose an above-the-line deduction for Social Security taxes so that an individual's Social Security taxes are not included in the calculation of income for income tax purposes. It's the right thing to do if we want to lead this Nation by example. Providing a Social Security tax deduction makes sense and will make a real difference to working families. About 100 million individuals and families would feel the savings--to the tune of around $2,000 each. Such savings translate into real growth and opportunity. Scholars predict that the Payroll Tax Deduction Act would mean 900,000 new jobs in this country, and it also means a Nation of workers who get to keep more of their hard-earned money. When government takes money away from working families, it stifles growth and builds obstacles to success. Let's take this chance to provide relief to America's families, open the doors to opportunity, and let future generations know that the American dream--the jewel that inspired Abraham Lincoln--is well within the reach of all who truly desire it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, 194 years ago this week, a son was born to Nancy and Thomas Lincoln in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. That son, Abraham, would go on to become President of the United States at one of the most defining times in our Nation's history. President Lincoln is still revered today for his leadership and vision of a country in which all citizens have the opportunity to succeed. In 1864, when the outcomes of the war and his re-election were in question, he asked soldiers from Ohio's 66th regiment to stop at the White House on their way home so he could express his appreciation. President Lincoln shared with them the following: ``I beg you to remember this . . . I happen temporarily to occupy this big White House. I am a living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my father's child has. It is in order that each of you may have through this free government which we have enjoyed, an open field and a fair chance for your industry, enterprise and intelligence; that you may all have equal privileges in the race of life, with all its desirable human aspirations. It is for this the struggle would be maintained, that we may not lose our birthright . . . The nation is worth fighting for, to secure such an inestimable jewel.'' That jewel--the American dream that should be within reach of all who grasp for it--has been the hope of generations in this nation. This Nation that elected Abraham Lincoln--born in a one-room log cabin and once a farmhand . . . This Nation that harvests in its children a yearning to soar beyond the earth's atmosphere . . . This Nation that preaches that education, hard work, and family bring success. Unfortunately, making a living, raising a family, and educating ourselves and our children is becoming more and more difficult in America. And it's the leaders of this nation that have made the obstacles to success higher to get over and wider to get around. Here in Washington, we've built a wall of obstacles with one tax burden after another. Our Founding Fathers outlined exactly the powers they wanted Congress to have in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Just because the first thing listed is the power to lay and collect taxes, doesn't mean it's the power we need to exercise the most. Not only should we take the responsibility of stopping the building of this wall of tax burdens, we need to step up and start removing these burdens. We need to alleviate the tremendous stress that comes with having to work to pay so much of what we earn to the government. Last year, the average taxpayer in my home State of Nevada did not finish paying taxes until April 27, which was also the average across the United States. Everything earned for the first 117 days of the year went to a government entity. In comparison, the average American spends only 106 days paying for food, clothing, and shelter combined. That doesn't leave enough days to pay for a family vacation or to save for education or to pay medical bills or to save for retirement or to take a class to improve skills or to do whatever you want with your money--after all, it is your money. In itself, our tax system is unfair because American families have to work harder to make more money only to pay greater taxes, and workers bear the burden of a government that continues to find ways to tax them into working even harder. Whatever our individual thoughts are on tax relief, we must agree that, although being taxed has become a challenging part of life, the idea of being double taxed is truly the government stealing from working Americans. Double taxation is immoral. Think about it in terms of a parent teaching a child. I am a parent of three young children. Just as I would explain to my children that it is not all right to take a piece of candy that they have not paid for, I would also tell them it is absolutely not okay to charge someone for something they aren't getting. But that is exactly what our government is doing with the Social Security tax. Time magazine recently called it ``The Really Unfair Tax.'' I call it the Social Security double dip. The take-home pay of 100 million Americans is fodder for this gutsy government scam. In very simple terms, this means that when a family pays income tax, the portion that is withheld for Social Security--money that they never see--is calculated into their personal income. The first dip is the tax that workers pay on wage income. The second dip is the icing on the cake for the government--taxing money that they are already taking anyway. Working Americans are forced to pay income tax on their Social Security tax. It is textbook double taxation, and if a business concocted such a scheme it would be shut down. How can we continue this policy if we would teach our children that it is wrong? This is only one reason why the tax is unfair. Another example of the outrageousness of this tax is that while working families are double taxed, American businesses are not. You see, half the Social Security tax is paid by workers, but employers pay the other half. Businesses and corporations get to deduct what they pay in Social Security taxes--a savings that working families are not afforded. This tax discrimination is unacceptable. We must eliminate this absolutely wrong tax policy that mocks our Constitution's goal to ``promote the general Welfare.'' I propose an above-the-line deduction for Social Security taxes so that an individual's Social Security taxes are not included in the calculation of income for income tax purposes. It's the right thing to do if we want to lead this Nation by example. Providing a Social Security tax deduction makes sense and will make a real difference to working families. About 100 million individuals and families would feel the savings--to the tune of around $2,000 each. Such savings translate into real growth and opportunity. Scholars predict that the Payroll Tax Deduction Act would mean 900,000 new jobs in this country, and it also means a Nation of workers who get to keep more of their hard-earned money. When government takes money away from working families, it stifles growth and builds obstacles to success. Let's take this chance to provide relief to America's families, open the doors to opportunity, and let future generations know that the American dream--the jewel that inspired Abraham Lincoln--is well within the reach of all who truly desire it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I have a preamble to my question. I heard my colleague refer to the opposition to Miguel Estrada as imposing an intellectual glass ceiling for Hispanics who are not liberals. We hear a lot about diversity on the courts. Yet some people seem intent on blocking this nominee for having a diversity of opinion as compared to what those on the left want. Don't you agree that an important kind of diversity is the diversity of ideas, and isn't that exactly what the opponents of Mr. Estrada and his confirmation are trying to prevent-- diverse ideas from a Hispanic nominee?

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to extend my deepest condolences to the families of the seven astronauts whose lives were lost on February 1. To Nevadans Audrey and Barry McCool, whose son William piloted the final Columbia mission, I offer my sympathy and the sincere gratitude of an entire nation. You raised an incredible human being. William McCool represented the best and the brightest of this country. Though his life was taken prematurely, his legacy will be felt indefinitely. William was incredibly smart, a talented athlete, and a true patriot. The combination of these traits, along with devoted parents and religious conviction, produced an American hero. We mourn that hero today, as Audrey and Barry McCool mourn their son. And while we stand with them in grief, we should also express our admiration for the type of son they raised. Many children dream of one day becoming an astronaut. A very elite few ever make that dream a reality. For William McCool, his dream was his destiny. As a child, he looked up to his Marine and Navy pilot father, built model airplanes, and became an Eagle Scout. As a young man, he excelled by graduating second in his class at the Naval Academy, maintaining a 4.0 grade point average, and earning advanced degrees in computer science and aeronautical engineering. Not applying to be an astronaut until his thirties, by the time of his last mission William had logged more than 2,800 hours of flight experience in 24 aircraft, including more than 400 landings on aircraft-carrier decks. As a pilot, William McCool risked his life often for this country. On January 16, he left his wife, sons, parents, and siblings grounded on Earth while he soared toward his lifetime dream among the stars. William was kept from completing his journey home, but our gratitude for his service must not be short lived. We must ensure that these 7 astronauts, and the 10 other NASA astronauts who died in pursuit of knowledge, did not do so in vain. We ow it to their children to continue the quest of space science, and we owe it to all our children to continue reaching for the stars.

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess for the policy lunches and that it reconvene at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to be joined by my distinguished colleagues in introducing legislation that addresses the welfare of exotic animals throughout the country. Specifically, this bill prohibits the interstate shipment of exotic animals; namely lions, cheetahs, tigers, jaguars, and leopards. Only zoos, circuses, sanctuaries, universities, licensed breeders and other Federal and State licensed facilities are exempted from this prohibition. During my days as a practicing veterinarian, I saw firsthand exotic animals mistreated by owners who were ill-prepared to care for them. All too often, large cats are put in cages that are too small to accommodate their growing needs. Owners often buy a young tiger or cat, paying more attention to their cuddly exterior rather than the overwhelming responsibility that comes along with raising an animal that will grow into a large, wild, predator. In my home State of Nevada, there is a burgeoning population of exotic animals being kept as pets. I have been contacted by animal control centers throughout the State that are called to aid in situations where a wild tiger or lion has escaped and run amok. In these situations, not only are the owners and the animal control professionals in danger, so too are children and other neighbors who may be in the wrong place at the wrong time. These animals' instinct is to attack, and they will do so, if given the opportunity. That is why only highly trained individuals who have the know-how and the resources should be able to own exotic animals. In fact, I am informed that officials in Nye County in my home State, are working to pass a county ordinance that would ban the ownership of exotic animals because of the threat these animals pose to public safety. We have the support and backing of the Humane Society of the United States, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and the American Zoo and Aquarium Association. This legislation protects the public, but also ensures that the animals receive the best care possible from certified and trained owners. I look forward to having the overwhelming support of my colleagues in the Senate.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to be joined by my distinguished colleagues in introducing legislation that addresses the welfare of exotic animals throughout the country. Specifically, this bill prohibits the interstate shipment of exotic animals; namely lions, cheetahs, tigers, jaguars, and leopards. Only zoos, circuses, sanctuaries, universities, licensed breeders and other Federal and State licensed facilities are exempted from this prohibition. During my days as a practicing veterinarian, I saw firsthand exotic animals mistreated by owners who were ill-prepared to care for them. All too often, large cats are put in cages that are too small to accommodate their growing needs. Owners often buy a young tiger or cat, paying more attention to their cuddly exterior rather than the overwhelming responsibility that comes along with raising an animal that will grow into a large, wild, predator. In my home State of Nevada, there is a burgeoning population of exotic animals being kept as pets. I have been contacted by animal control centers throughout the State that are called to aid in situations where a wild tiger or lion has escaped and run amok. In these situations, not only are the owners and the animal control professionals in danger, so too are children and other neighbors who may be in the wrong place at the wrong time. These animals' instinct is to attack, and they will do so, if given the opportunity. That is why only highly trained individuals who have the know-how and the resources should be able to own exotic animals. In fact, I am informed that officials in Nye County in my home State, are working to pass a county ordinance that would ban the ownership of exotic animals because of the threat these animals pose to public safety. We have the support and backing of the Humane Society of the United States, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and the American Zoo and Aquarium Association. This legislation protects the public, but also ensures that the animals receive the best care possible from certified and trained owners. I look forward to having the overwhelming support of my colleagues in the Senate.

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, ``What are you doing for others?'' It is in the spirit of this simple question that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., lived and died. Can you imagine if every person started each day with such a challenge? If before we thought about what clothes we would wear or what food we would eat or what meetings we had scheduled, we asked ourselves, ``What are you doing for others?'' These weren't just words to Dr. King. He walked the walk. And his walk often took place in neighborhoods where he was stoned by angry crowds, in jail cells where he was imprisoned, and in cities where he was despised. But every morning he woke up with the attitude that he was here to serve others, and he believed that everyone was capable of doing the same. He once said in a sermon that, ``Everybody can be great, because everybody can serve.'' The only requirements to serve, according to King, were ``. . . a heart full of grace, a soul generated by love . . .''. For the 39 years that Dr. King graced this world, he led by example. And for the almost 35 years since his death, his legacy has continued to light a path to love, tolerance, reconciliation, and equality. As well lit as he left that path, we still continue to stumble. That is why celebrating Dr. King's mission, even if just one day a year, is so necessary. We must remind ourselves how important it is for us to keep working toward a Nation that promotes opportunity for all while celebrating our unique differences. Race relations in American have come a long way since almost 40 years ago when Dr. King penned his ``Letter from a Birmingham Jail'' after demonstrating against the segregation of restaurants. He wrote: We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, ``Wait.'' But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim * * * when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you * * * when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading ``white'' and ``colored,'' then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. A lot has changed since then, but in 2003, Dr. King's work is still not complete. Opportunity is not available to all, and we have not fully succeeded at respecting each other's differences. As we honor the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., we are reminded that he lived to love others and serve others as a pastor, a champion of equality, and a leader of freedom. He lost his life while on a mission to leave his children, and all our children, a better world. We owe it to him to continue down that path to love, tolerance, reconciliation, and equality, for only when we reach the end will his work have been completed. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 3833, the Dot Kids bill of 2002. Senator Dorgan and I introduced this bipartisan bill earlier this year to protect children on the Internet, and I am gratified that the Senate will act on it today. It is estimated today that over 140 million Americans use the Internet, many of them children. Most schools are equipped with computers, where our children learn to navigate the Internet; in most cases children do so with better skill than parents. No longer do our children have to go to the library and sift through voluminous card catalogues for their research projects. No longer do our children need to be in school to communicate with their teachers and fellow classmates--they can do it from home by using e-mail and instant messaging. Families simply need a computer with an Internet connection to provide children with access to a greater breadth of information than the Library of Congress. The educational opportunities are limitless. However, the Internet can also be used as a tool for evil. Many young children have tragically fallen victim to on-line predators. They have been stalked by pedophiles masquerading as other children. Many more young children on the Internet are routinely exposed to graphic violence, drugs and inappropriate sexual content despite parents' efforts at restricting such content. Congress first acted to protect children on the Internet in 1996 with passage of the Communications Decency Act, CDA. This legislation criminalized engaging in indecent or patently offensive speech on computer networks if the speech could be viewed by anyone 18 years of age or younger, but it did not survive constitutional challenges. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union that the CDA violated First Amendment free-speech protections. Congress subsequently responded in 1998 with passage of the Children's Online Protection Act, COPA, legislation that prohibited communication of material that is harmful to minors on for-profit websites. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, in American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, upheld an injunction by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on constitutional grounds and remanded the case for further review. Another attempt was made to strike the careful balance between the first amendment and protecting children on the Internet with passage of the Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000, CIPA. This legislation required schools and libraries that receive Federal funding to install filtering software to block from minors Internet content that contains child pornography, or other obscene and indecent material that is harmful to minors. Moreover, this legislation required federally funded libraries to block adults from accessing websites containing obscene material or child pornography. However, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania unanimously held in American Library Association v. United States that CIPA was unconstitutional. The bill before us today represents the most recent effort by Congress to craft legislation that can both protect children on the Internet and withstand constitutional scrutiny. The Dot Kids bill establishes a children's section of the Internet, much like a children's section of the library, where children will be safe from pedophiles, pornography, and violence. We worked to craft the Dot Kids bill to withstand first amendment challenges by not imposing a burden on free speech to adults; the use of the Dot Kids subdomain is completely voluntary. As such, it recognizes and protects the rights of those who wish to view content not suitable for minors outside of the Dot Kids subdomain. Content within the Dot Kids subdomain must be suitable for children under 13 years of age. Dot Kids also protects children from accessing websites outside the Dot Kids subdomain or engaging in uncertified interactive services. This is a major victory for children and families. Chat rooms and instant messaging is a key component in allowing pedophiles to stalk children over the Internet. Liability protection was also provided for the domain administrator by utilizing the ``Good Samaritan'' provision in the Communications Act of 1934. This provision will ensure that the Dot Kids administrator will not be held liable for actions voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to, or availability of, obscene, harassing, violent or other objectionable material. I am pleased that the Family Research Council, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the American Center for Law and Justice, a Safer America for Everyone, SAFE, and the National Law Center for Children and Families have joined our effort in supporting this proposal. The U.S. House of Representatives previously passed this measure by an overwhelming majority vote with the hard work of many dedicated Members of Congress including Congressman Shimkus, Congressman Tauzin, Congressman Upton, Congressman Markey and Congressman Dingell.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Allard and Cantwell to introduce the Animal Fighting Enforcement Act. I would like to thank my colleagues for their support in this endeavor to protect the welfare of animals. This legislation targets the troubling, widespread and sometimes underground activities of dogfighting and cockfighting where dogs and birds are bred and trained to fight to the death. This is done for the sheer enjoyment and illegal wagering of the animals' handlers and spectators. These activities are reprehensible and despicable. Our States' laws reflect this sentiment. All 50 States have prohibited dogfighting. It is considered a felony in 46 States. Cockfighting is illegal in 47 States, and it is a felony in 26 States. In my home State of Nevada, both dogfighting and cockfighting are considered felonies. In fact, it is a felony to even attend a dogfighting or cockfighting match. Unfortunately, in spite of public opposition to extreme animal suffering, these animal fighting industries thrive. There are 11 underground dogfighting publications, and several above-ground cockfighting magazines. These magazines advertise and sell animals and the materials associated with animal fighting. They also seek to legitimize this shocking practice. During the consideration of the Farm Bill, a provision was included that closed loopholes in Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act. Both the House and the Senate increased the maximum jail time for individuals who violate any provision of Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act from one year to two years, making any violation a Federal felony. However, during the conference, the jail time increase was removed. The legislation that I am introducing today seeks to do three things. First, it restores the jail time increase to treat the violations as a felony. I am informed by U.S. Attorneys that they are hesitant to pursue animal fighting cases with merely a misdemeanor penalty. To illustrate this, it is important to note that only three cases since 1976 have advanced, even though the USDA has received innumerable tips from informants and requests to assist with state and local prosecutions. Increased penalties will provide a greater incentive for federal authorities to pursue animal fighting cases. Second, the bill prohibits the interstate shipment of cockfighting implements, such as razor-sharp knives and gaffs. The specific knives are commonly known as ``slashers.'' The slashers and ice-pick-like gaffs are attached to the legs of birds to make the cockfights more violent and to induce bleeding of the animals. These weapons are used only in cockfights. Since Congress has restricted shipment of birds for fighting, it should also restrict implements designed specifically for fights. Finally, the bill updates language regarding the procedures that enforcement agents follow when they seize the animals. This regards the proper care and transportation of the animals that are seized. It also states that the court may order the convicted person to pay for the costs incurred in the housing, care, feeding, and treatment of the animals. I appreciate the support of both Senators Allard and Cantwell in this effort, and look forward to the overwhelming support of my other colleagues in the Senate. I also wish to recognize Representative Robert Andrews for his leadership on the House version of this bill. Surely, this is an issue that must be addressed as soon as possible. We cannot allow this barbaric practice to continue in our civilized society.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Allard and Cantwell to introduce the Animal Fighting Enforcement Act. I would like to thank my colleagues for their support in this endeavor to protect the welfare of animals. This legislation targets the troubling, widespread and sometimes underground activities of dogfighting and cockfighting where dogs and birds are bred and trained to fight to the death. This is done for the sheer enjoyment and illegal wagering of the animals' handlers and spectators. These activities are reprehensible and despicable. Our States' laws reflect this sentiment. All 50 States have prohibited dogfighting. It is considered a felony in 46 States. Cockfighting is illegal in 47 States, and it is a felony in 26 States. In my home State of Nevada, both dogfighting and cockfighting are considered felonies. In fact, it is a felony to even attend a dogfighting or cockfighting match. Unfortunately, in spite of public opposition to extreme animal suffering, these animal fighting industries thrive. There are 11 underground dogfighting publications, and several above-ground cockfighting magazines. These magazines advertise and sell animals and the materials associated with animal fighting. They also seek to legitimize this shocking practice. During the consideration of the Farm Bill, a provision was included that closed loopholes in Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act. Both the House and the Senate increased the maximum jail time for individuals who violate any provision of Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act from one year to two years, making any violation a Federal felony. However, during the conference, the jail time increase was removed. The legislation that I am introducing today seeks to do three things. First, it restores the jail time increase to treat the violations as a felony. I am informed by U.S. Attorneys that they are hesitant to pursue animal fighting cases with merely a misdemeanor penalty. To illustrate this, it is important to note that only three cases since 1976 have advanced, even though the USDA has received innumerable tips from informants and requests to assist with state and local prosecutions. Increased penalties will provide a greater incentive for federal authorities to pursue animal fighting cases. Second, the bill prohibits the interstate shipment of cockfighting implements, such as razor-sharp knives and gaffs. The specific knives are commonly known as ``slashers.'' The slashers and ice-pick-like gaffs are attached to the legs of birds to make the cockfights more violent and to induce bleeding of the animals. These weapons are used only in cockfights. Since Congress has restricted shipment of birds for fighting, it should also restrict implements designed specifically for fights. Finally, the bill updates language regarding the procedures that enforcement agents follow when they seize the animals. This regards the proper care and transportation of the animals that are seized. It also states that the court may order the convicted person to pay for the costs incurred in the housing, care, feeding, and treatment of the animals. I appreciate the support of both Senators Allard and Cantwell in this effort, and look forward to the overwhelming support of my other colleagues in the Senate. I also wish to recognize Representative Robert Andrews for his leadership on the House version of this bill. Surely, this is an issue that must be addressed as soon as possible. We cannot allow this barbaric practice to continue in our civilized society.