Floor Statements

Mr. President, the hours immediately following a disaster are critical to rescue and recovery efforts. Local law enforcement is often overburdened and staff is spread thin. As we saw in New Orleans, a lack of police presence can result in chaos and disorder which can affect the ability of first responders to conduct rescue operations.

In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, volunteer first responders from throughout the country went to New Orleans and Biloxi to assist local law enforcement. Unfortunately, many of these volunteers encountered red tape that left them frustrated and idle rather than using their expertise to aid efforts.

Because there is a desire from retired police officers to offer their experience and expertise in times of crisis, today, along with my colleague Senator Vitter, I will be introducing the Law Enforcement Assistance Force Act to assist local law enforcement.

The Law Enforcement Assistance Force Act would allow a retired law enforcement officer, whose certifications are current, to apply to the Secretary of Homeland Security to serve in the force. These retired police officers would be detailed to Federal, State, or local government law enforcement agencies to assist in the event of a major disaster. They would work under the direct supervision of existing law enforcement agencies and would be deputized and certified to perform the duties of a law enforcement agent. The force would serve as temporary first responders to supplement local efforts in search and rescue efforts as well as in protecting public safety. These retired officers have the skills to save lives and we should empower them to do so.

At a time of emergency when we should be tapping into all available resources, we cannot ignore the expertise of retired law enforcement officers who still have the ability and willingness to help those in need. We should take advantage of the fact that retired officers possess a wealth of talent and experience in dealing with emergency situations. Their assistance can save lives and contribute greatly to our communities.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment.

Mr. President, I have the floor.

Mr. President, don't I have a right to be heard before the point of order is raised? I was recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, Senator McCain and I understand that our amendment is going to be ruled nongermane. Previously, it was going to be ruled germane. Since then some items were pointed out that has caused the amendment to be ruled as nongermane. Despite that fact, I would hope that the managers of the bill will work in conference to clarify the language of this bill. I know the chairman of the Rules Committee has said that he will review this language. I believe he will. Our amendment seeks to clarify that if things are put into a conference report that were not in either the House bill or the Senate bill, a Senator would have the chance to take those items out without taking down the entire conference report. One section of this bill creates a new point of order against items that are slipped into conference reports. The provisions in the bill seek to address what has become a very significant problem around here. A member slips something in, without debate. That certainly is not an open process. The purpose of this lobbying reform bill is to make sure there is more transparency and our amendment is consistent with that.

The way the bill is drafted, there is a problem. The bill uses the term matter without providing a definition or examples of anything that would be considered a matter.

According to our discussions with the Parliamentarian, that definition would not allow a point of order to be raised because there could be no way for the Parliamentarian to interpret the new rule. This point of order would basically be null-and-void.

Our amendment was attempting to clarify the bill by providing a definition. That way we will ensure that we have openness in the process of conference reports. That certainly is the purpose of our bill and of our amendment.

Without losing my right to the floor, I ask the chairman if he would submit to a question through the Chair. I ask the chairman of the Rules Committee if he would commit to working on this definition in conference so that it will meet with the criteria stated by the Parliamentarian to give effect to the rule. That way the provisions of this bill will meet with the intent of what

the Chairman said in his previous statement.

Mr. President, very simply, I will let people know what the intent is. I have worked with Senator McCain. I applaud his efforts. He has been doing this a lot longer than I have.

All we are trying to do is say if something was not in the Senate bill, not in the House bill, and it was put in, in the conference, a point of order could be raised against that item without bringing an entire bill down.

Right now nobody wants to raise a point of order against a bill because they don't want to bring the whole bill down. Senators know we have to fund the Government, so nobody wants to bring a point of order against a bill that does that. Nobody wants to vote on a point of order that brings down the whole bill either. But if something was put in which was not in the House bill and not in the Senate bill, we want to be able to surgically strike that provision to make sure that we have a cleaner process in government. This is not new ground as the Senate already has this rule with respect to Budget reconciliation bills.

I will yield for a question without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. President, those and many other things have been put in. Sometimes good things are put in. But that is not the way the legislative process is supposed to work. We are supposed to have an open process. Senators should be able to see what is in a bill. We should provide transparency so that the public can scrutinize what is going on. The current process is broken when we are forced to enact provisions that were not in either one of the bills.

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

I yield for a question.

I agree with the Senator from Arizona. I appreciate the manager of the bill when he said he would work with us. I wanted it on the record that the managers have committed to working with us to ensure that the intent of the bill is clear. Which is exactly what our amendment seeks to do. The bill managers have put it on the record that it is their intent. We hope in this process, as this bill moves forward, that the language that is ultimately adopted will include some kind of a definition, as we have tried to do, so that the intent of the Senate is clear. It needs to be done. We need to clean up the appropriations process we have going on in the Senate.

I don't see any reason to raise a point of order. I think it would be easier to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

If the Senator could give me 60 seconds.

I call up amendment No. 2980.

Mr. President, let me discuss this amendment very briefly. I want to be cooperative with the managers of the bill. I know they want to wrap up this legislation.

This amendment is germane. We will have a recorded vote on this particular amendment, unless the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations agrees to a voice vote that we would win.

Section 103 of this bill creates a new Senate rule. Each Senator knows that we create very few new Senate rules because the rules we create are hard to change once created. The rules we make today will govern the Senate's conduct for years to come. It is important we get language right the first time so we do not have any unintended consequences.

Within the proposed rule in this bill is a definition of the term ``earmark.'' Many people in my home State of Nevada have heard the phrase earmark, as people across the country have. As taxpayers, Nevadans understand some earmarks can be costly, some can be beneficial. Earmarks are often the result of Senators using their influence

to require Federal agencies to spend significant dollars in their States. In some cases, earmarks are given to State or local governments or charitable or philanthropic organizations. In many cases, these earmarks are justifiable. In many cases, these earmarks have a national impact and can be justified because they meet a national purpose.

Each Senator has seen the abuse of the earmark process. That is why we have offered this amendment. To clear up abuses. Our amendment provides a clear definition of what an earmark is. Our definition clarifies that earmarks are not limited solely to non-Federal entities. The definition also includes Federal entities. Spending for federal, as well as non-Federal, entities in the earmarking process can be abused.

The Senator from Mississippi argued earlier it is a Senator's right to offer things that are good for their State. Senators have ideas about how money should be spent. I actually have no problem with that philosophy. I agree to a great degree with that philosophy. The problem is that such a process has been abused in too many cases. For instance, the military provides a procurement list to the Armed Services Committee that includes lists of things the military says they need. In order to benefit their state, Senators will contradict the decisions of the military and override the military's request. They ignore what is in the best interest of the military in order to benefit their State. Military is a Federal project but this bill does not provide accountability. This bill would continue to allow Senators to put their political interests before the needs of the military.

That is why our amendment expands the definition of earmark to both Federal and not just non-Federal entities. That is why we should support this amendment.

I yield.

I would say to the Senator from Mississippi, if one Senator were to raise a point of order against the item you have described, the process laid out in this bill would be to have the entire Senate decide the matter. If the rest of the Senate believes that the additional helicopters are justifiable, then the----

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

That is exactly some of the things we are trying to avoid.

It would allow for the designation to continue.

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, just very briefly, this amendment has to do with funding for the United Nations Human Rights Council which I believe is worse than the discredited United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

Members will not be selected primarily on the basis of their commitment to human rights, even countries under Security Council sanctions for human rights violations or terrorism.

The United States has been a member of the United States Commission on Human Rights since 1947, with one exception. That will no longer be the case. Due to a rotating membership, the United States will be ineligible for the Human Rights Council membership every 6 years. So our country, which has been at the forefront of promoting human rights, would periodically lose its seat but still be required to cover 22 percent of the United Nations Human Rights Council cost.

I am proud of the United States and how we have stood firm and opposed creation of this fatally flawed council. We need to make sure we are not funding this council, and that is exactly what our amendment does. It takes away the funding from the Human Rights Council and puts it toward border security.

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

Mr. President, last year when the Senate was considering the national intelligence reform bill, we adopted several recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

One of those recommendations was to hire an additional 2,000 new Custom and border protection agents each year for the next 5 years. This body agreed with the recommendation. We agreed that our national security depended on such an investment, and we enacted that recommendation into law.

We are now considering a budget resolution that will determine whether Congress will keep the promise we made to the American people to protect our Nation's borders. There are many provisions in this budget that demonstrate a commitment to border security. I thank and congratulate Chairman Gregg for those provisions. But the budget that was reported out of committee includes funding for only 1,500 new agents in the coming year.

My amendment would provide $153 million to ensure that we hire 2,000 new agents next year. This amendment is fully offset. Let's face it-- the threat of illegal border crossing by people who wish to kill us is very real. In order to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil, we must improve every aspect of our Nation's security. Our security is truly only as strong as our weakest link.

For too long, the lack of funding for border agents has been a weak link. By funding additional agents, we protect both our southern and our often neglected northern border. This will make it harder for terrorists to enter the United States and attack us.

There have been several news reports recently that I want to bring to my colleagues' attention.

Last year, intelligence officials confirmed that the terrorist, Zarqawi, plans to infiltrate America through our borders. He plans to attack targets such as movie theaters, restaurants, and schools. My amendment commits the resources to make sure that this does not happen.

Just last summer, in Detroit, a Lebanese national named Mahmoud Youssef Kourani, who was in the United States illegally, pled guilty in Federal court to conspiring to raise money for a recognized terrorist group. He was in the United States raising money to fund terrorists. That is outrageous. But what is equally outrageous is how he came into the United States in the first place.

Kourani took advantage of our porous border. Kourani paid a Mexican consular official in Beirut $3,000 for a visa to enter Mexico. Once in Mexico, he snuck across the U.S.-Mexican border in 2001 and settled in Michigan.

According to Federal prosecutors, Kourani and another member of his family are heavily involved with the same group that killed 214 marines in Beirut in 1983 and which is also responsible for bombing two U.S. Embassies.

While in the United States, Kourani also helped harbor other illegal immigrants. Thankfully, he was prosecuted before he could inflict any direct harm on any American.

Given how easy it is for people like Kourani to enter the United States, I believe that my amendment is imperative to our national security.

My amendment does not require any additional spending. It is completely offset. This amendment is paid for.

Homeland Security spending must be based on priorities. The fact that terrorists would use our borders to gain access to the United States to attack us is a real threat. So we must provide funds for Customs and border protection.

Four and a half years ago it only took 19 to change the course of this country. We must do everything that we can to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil.

The world has changed dramatically since 9/11 when the terrorists used our open and trusting society against us. We can not allow a repeat of that tragedy.

This amendment will help those who guard our frontiers by providing the necessary, and I stress necessary, tools to ensure the safety of our citizens.

I urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to decry the failure of the United Nations to create a human rights body that deserves U.S. support. I regret that the United Nations, tasked with the solemn duty to craft a Human Rights council that would be beyond reproach, has failed in its mission. It has created a council that in its essential components has the same failings as its predecessor, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

The U.N. Commission on Human Rights is an embarrassment. The U.N. Secretary General admitted as much in March 2005 when he said that, ``the Commission on Human Rights suffers from declininq credlibility and professionalism, and is in major need of reform'' and that a fundamental problem is that, ``States have sought membership . . . not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others.''

Just look at the current Members of the Commission on Human Rights, the U.N.'s primary human rights body. They include some of the world's worst human rights violators, such as China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.

The United States and other countries quite rightly called for the abolition of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and its replacement with a new Human Rights Council. The Secretary General endorsed the need for a smaller body that would be less likely to include countries found complicit in massive and sustained human rights abuses would be able to serve.

Unfortunately, true reform was not embraced by the U.N. The Council will have 47 members instead of 53. That's far above the 20 member level proposed by the United States. And members will not be selected primarily on the basis of their commitment to human rights. In fact, there are no real criteria for membership. Even countries under Security Council sanctions for human rights violations or terrorism are not categorically excluded from membership on the Council.

The protection of human rights is of fundamental value to the United States. The United States has become used to having a presence on the U.N.'s primary human rights body. The US has been a member of the commission every term since 1947, with one exception. That will no longer be the case. Due to a rotating membership on the new council, the United States would be ineligible for Human Rights Council membership every six years. So our country, which has been at the forefront of promoting human rights would periodically lose its seat but still be required to cover 22 percent of the Human Rights Council's costs. Mr. President, in my book this makes this new U.N. Council worse than the discredited U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

President Bush noted in his remarks before the U.N. General Assembly in

September 2005, ``When this great institution's member states choose notorious abusers of human rights to sit on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, they discredit a noble effort, and undermine the credibility of the whole organization. If member countries want the United Nations to be respected--respected and effective, they should begin by making sure it is worthy of respect.''

Mr. President, I am proud that the United States stood firm and opposed the creation of this fatally flawed Human Rights Council. Our country understood that to affirm this new council with our vote would have granted it legitimacy. The United States should be consistent. We should decline to participate on the council and fund the council for the very same reason we voted against it. Our country should not support a U.N. Human Rights Council which permits countries found complicit in sustained human rights abuses to be eligible for membership.

Mr. President, I am embarrassed to say that some in the State Department are suggesting that even though we voted against the creation of the council we should take a wait-and-see approach and support it in the interim. That makes no sense. If this council had a chance to work, then the U.S. should have voted for it.

Mr. President, other nations may not like what we stand for--but they know where we stand. U.S. human rights policy needs to be consistent and clear. We need to take a different wait-and-see approach. No participation and no funding until the U.N. proves that member states will not elect human rights violators.

Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the strength of our economy.

This might seem like a news flash, but our economy is thriving.

You would not know it if you tuned in to a network newscast or read the paper, but we have much to be excited about.

The U.S. economy is healthy, growing, and creating more opportunity every single day.

The commonsense tax relief that we passed in the Senate and that the President signed into law have fueled our economy and driven it to new heights.

Fighting for this relief wasn't a gamble--we did it because it has a proven track record.

We know that lowering taxes creates more jobs, greater opportunity, and overall prosperity.

It has been proven in my home State of Nevada, and we have seen the results in our Nation's economy over the last several years.

Since 2003, when the tax cut went into effect, there have been almost 5 million new jobs created.

Economic growth in the United States has outpaced other major industrialized countries.

We have had 33 straight months of growth in our manufacturing sector. And productivity has grown strongly over the last 5 years.

In January, the unemployment rate fell to the lowest monthly rate since July 2001 and lower than the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

In Nevada, the unemployment rate is at an all time low, 3.6 percent.

Tax relief is working.

All of this economic growth and job market expansion is a result of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 that jumpstarted our economy and fueled unprecedented growth.

Another example of how tax cuts boost the economy is the Invest in the USA Act which I offered.

I introduced this legislation, which was included in the JOBS Act of 2004. However, this was only a temporary, 1 year tax reduction.

When meeting with corporations in the Silicon Valley, I learned that U.S. corporations pay no U.S. tax on foreign earnings invested overseas, the same as their foreign competitors. But they pay taxes on 100 percent of the foreign earnings that they want to reinvest in the United States.

Obviously, this deters many U.S. companies from reinvesting their foreign earnings in the United States. That comes at a great loss to our economy.

The Invest in the USA Act temporarily modified this inequity for 1 year by taxing companies at 15 percent for foreign earnings reinvested in the United States.

By January 2006 when it expired, the law had encouraged companies to bring home and reinvest an additional $350 billion of foreign earnings in the United States. It raised revenues, lifted investment, and created thousands of jobs.

We should take the momentum of the tax relief measures we have provided during the last several years and build on them.

Our economy is growing and that is great news, but as has always been the case in the United States, we look to the future and work to make it even better.

Let's make tax relief permanent and reassure American families and businesses that today's remarkable economy is just the beginning.

Cutting taxes, empowering working families by letting them keep more of their income, encouraging small businesses to expand and create jobs--that is how we continue to create opportunity and success in the United States.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

How much time remains on our side?

Mr. President, my preference would have been that this bill not go forward simply because I believe this legislation is not paid for. It would be different if the proponents of this legislation had truly paid for it, in other words, offset this spending. Instead of offsetting this spending, they take in the money from next year, bring it into this year and then will try next year to restore the money. If they would have said: This is the priority, let's reset our priorities and let's cut some other type of spending to pay for this, the legislation would have been a lot more acceptable.

That is the reason we raised the budget point of order last week against this legislation. We lost on that budget point of order. So now it looks as though the legislation has a chance of moving forward, and we have to determine how the money is spent. Is it fair to spend it across the country, or should it benefit some States at the expense of other States?

The LIHEAP program is set up with a very complex formula. It is assistance for those people who are low income, who need help with their heating oil or with air conditioning expenses--for those who live in hot States such as myself, or in Arizona, or some of the other southern States around the gulf coast.

The reason people are seeking this increase is because natural gas has exploded in price. Obviously, heating oil has done the same. So there is a need out there for assistance and we don't deny that. We think there is legitimacy to meeting that need. But it is a question of how do we now disburse this money fairly to the States.

Let me get back to the LIHEAP formula--how we determine how the money goes to the various States. It was set up a long time ago when this program was first put in effect that it would benefit more of the colder States. When it was set up, the first amounts of money would go in and mostly benefit those cold weather States; and then if there was more money put into the program, it would be distributed more fairly to help States that are warmer. The proponent has put forward that three- quarters of the money would go to continue to help those States that are in the colder regions of the country, and 25 percent of the money would then be distributed kind of equally across the country. That is not the way the program was intended to be set up.

Additional moneys are supposed to be distributed fairly across the board. Mr. President, 28 out of the 50 States would lose under Senator Snowe's bill; 22 States would benefit. Those same 22 States benefit under the moneys that have already been spent this year--more than the other States benefit.

We are not going to win the cloture vote. We fully admit that. We lost on a budget point of order, so we know we are going to lose on a cloture vote. After the cloture vote, there will be at least one amendment to change the formula so that other States are more fairly treated in this program.

I believe this billion dollars should be more fairly distributed across the country. So that is what we are going to attempt to do. We hope all of the Senators will look to see whether their States benefit more under the amendment Senator Kyl and I are going to put forward or benefit under Senator Snowe. If they look from a selfish perspective to their own States, they will vote with our amendment.

I think it is important when you are in the Senate to try to do what is best in the national perspective, but you also look to your State and your State's interest. When there is a pot of money out there, it is our responsibility to look to try to get our States' fair share of that money. That is what I am going to do for Nevada, and I know the Senator from Arizona is going to do that for the State of Arizona.

While this cloture vote will go forward, that doesn't mean we won't have germane amendments--which our amendment is--and that we won't have germane amendments to vote on to more fairly distribute the money.

How much time does the Senator need?

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

Mr. President, with that, I reserve the remainder of our time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, we are now engaging in a debate over an amendment. The amendment has to do with the LIHEAP proposal that has been brought forth. This first amendment would say to Senators that instead of the original proposal that Senator Snowe put forward, where 75 percent of the money went through the contingency fund, 25 percent goes through the regular formula, that now she has brought forward an amendment that would be 50-50, 50 percent through the contingency fund, 50 percent through the regular formula. If we defeat this amendment, the underlying amendment would say 100 percent of the money goes through the regular formula.

Why is that important? It is important because the 50 percent versus the 100 percent going to the regular formula, this is how it breaks down across the country. The red-colored States--this isn't Republican or Democrat, this just happens to be red-colored States in this case-- all would get more funding under the underlying amendment, the one where 100 percent of the money goes through the regular formula. The 50-50 or the underlying bill that Senator Snowe has put forward, basically the white-colored States, 21 of them, would do better under her formula. So it really is a question of fairness. Because the underlying formula in the LIHEAP provisions, the way it is implemented, benefits those 21 States right now. So the first $2 billion that is spent per year benefits 21 States. That is historically what has happened. And what we are saying is: If you are going to put an additional billion dollars to help low-income people around the country, it should benefit people from all over the country and be more fairly allocated. That is really what the 100 percent of the money going through the regular formula does. It makes it fairer.

Senator Snowe will make part of her arguments, and we had this discussion at lunch today. She will say that this is an emergency fund. This contingency fund is an emergency fund to be directed toward emergencies. That is not the way it has worked in the past. In the past, it has been divvied out earlier in the year when the cold States need it. And so when the warm States need it for air-conditioning in the summertime--and by the way, they need that air-conditioning, and in many cases it is a life-or-death situation because people can die from heat prostration and that is the real issue--the money is gone because it has been spent out of the contingency fund. That is why the only fair way to do it is to put it through the regular formula, divvy it out through the States. And then low-income people who need either heating or cooling assistance can receive that fairly.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, first of all, I wonder if the Senator from Maine would be willing to answer a question on my time. She says that this is offset. We have already had this argument, and we lost it. But it would be curious to get an answer to a question I have. You say that it is not going to increase the deficit at all because a billion dollars is taken out of next year's funding. I wonder if the Senator from Maine would be willing to agree not to come back and try to refill that money next year?

In other words, there is $1 billion taken out next year and she is saying it is deficit neutral. Would the Senator be willing to commit to not going after more money next year?

Reclaiming my time. I will answer the question because I can predict the future because I have seen it here enough. If you watch and learn from the past, you can predict the future. People will be going after this money and probably even more. These kinds of budget games are played all the time.

I wish to make a couple of points to respond to what the Senator from Maine has talked about. First, there is $183 million in the contingency fund this year, and $100 million has been spent so far. There is $83 million left in the contingency fund. She said this is for emergencies--the contingency fund is for emergencies. Well, other than post-Katrina, every other allocation since 2004 from the contingency fund has gone to all 50 States. She says it is only for emergencies. So all 50 States must have had emergencies every year.

That is not what the contingency fund has been. It has gone to every State. Our point is that the contingency fund has not been allocated fairly. I mentioned the $183 million, and there is $83 million left for this year's contingency fund. Has anybody noticed that it is all being allocated in the wintertime, so when the warmer weather States need their contingency fund, there won't be any left? That is the point.

She had problems with our numbers the other day. So we redid the numbers. We looked at the last 5 allocations of the contingency fund. As it turns out, in the last 5 allocations, 29 States do worse under her formula than if you adopt the underlying Kyl amendment--29 States. We are going to be passing this chart out to every Senator. The 29 States are the red States on the chart I have here. If you see your State there in red, your Senator should be voting with myself and Senator Kyl to more fairly allocate this money that is for LIHEAP.

The allocations that go out for LIHEAP are there for a very noble purpose. All we are asking is, if we are going to spend this money, let's do it fairly. For too long, the formulas have benefitted some States at the expense of others. The Senator from Maine is looking out for her State. I have no problem with her doing that. It is one of the things we are elected to do--to look out for the interests of our States--also the country, but particularly for our home State.

I think the people in my State and the people in the other 28 States that are unfairly treated in the way that she has her amendment drafted deserve fair treatment, and we as Senators should fight for the people in our States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. President, the Senator from Maine had a problem with the way we did this. It was the Congressional Research Service that did this. She said it was just a spot in time. So we said, OK, let's look at the last 5 allocations historically. How have these funds been allocated? She said 29 States would benefit under her formula. That is correct, 29 States would benefit under her amendment compared to her underlying bill. But 29 States would benefit more with the Kyl amendment than with the Snowe amendment. That is according to data from the Congressional Research Service. That is what we have to go from. That is our expert source we turn to for unbiased information. The chart I have is accurate if the people at the Congressional Research Service have done their jobs right. I have no way of knowing, other than they provide pretty good information to all Senators in a nonpartisan way. To say they are inaccurate--I don't believe that is an accurate statement; I will leave it at that.

To sum this up and close this argument, it is about fairness. The underlying LIHEAP program was set up a long time ago, and it was set up to be biased toward many of the northern States, especially in the Northeast. The LIHEAP formula is drafted so that when we start adding money in, then it is going to be distributed more fairly to all States for heating and cooling. This is an additional billion dollars. Those other 29 States that are not treated as fairly in the original program need to be treated more fairly.

Whether you are Republican or Democrat, you should look at our charts to find out how your State is treated under the Snowe amendment versus the Kyl amendment. Senators from the 29 States should, I believe, vote against the Snowe amendment, and then support the Kyl amendment.

I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, first of all, I was in the meeting with Senator Snowe before Christmas. This is not the formula that we had agreed on in those meetings.

Second of all, the formula that she says will benefit the warmer States is not accurate. It is not historically accurate. It is not accurate with regards to the contingency funding. Contingency funds were released in January. There are 29 States that will be worse off under the Snowe proposal, if this money is put through the regular formula, the warmer States benefit. The whole formula was set up so that mostly colder States would benefit from the first dollars, and then if dollars are added, the warmer States would benefit.

But the way this amendment is set up that is, in fact, not what happens.

We have a budget point of order. People have to know that we are not voting on cloture on the bill or cloture on a motion to proceed to the bill, but we are actually voting on a budget point of order.

This has been described as a mild winter. There is plenty of evidence for that, especially on the east coast. I think the only two States that could arguably say it has been a harsher winter than normal are Oregon and Washington. And most of the rest of the country has had a fairly mild winter.

The point that somehow the Northeast needs this more because they have more higher heating expenses isn't true. Electricity in most of the country now is generated by natural gas. Because of the environmental concerns plants have switched over to natural gas. Air conditioning in the Southern States is just as critical as heat in Northern States. When it gets hot enough, people die from heat.

The LIHEAP formula was set up to be able to help warmer States and help low-income people in those warmer States. Frankly, this proposal does not do that. It does not do that fairly. If this money were all put through the regular formula this would be a fair proposal.

That is why the Senator from Louisiana's State would lose around $18 million if this formula were done differently, as she would like to see it done, versus the way Senator Snowe has this drafted.

I didn't think this is the time for us to be waiving budget points of order. We are facing difficult fiscal times, and we need to show some fiscal restraint around here. Hopefully, we can sustain this budget point of order.

I reserve the remainder of our time.

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

This budget point of order is real, and this budget point of order I think should be sustained.

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

Madam President, I want to reiterate a little about what Senator Coburn talked about, whether this bill is paid for; if people want to truly pay for this legislation then we must cut other areas of spending. This is about priorities. If this is a priority--and a lot of people think it is, the Senator from Minnesota and the Senators from Maine and others from around the country believe it is a priority--then other sacrifices must be made to meet this priority. We need to set priorities in this country.

There are those of us who believe that deficits are real. They are absolutely real. People get up and talk about them all the time. But when it comes right down to whether you are willing to make tough choices instead of just increasing the spending and passing that debt on to the next generation, they aren't willing to offer other spending cuts so that we are not increasing the deficit.

That is the point that Senator Coburn and myself are trying to make. It is time to start being fiscally responsible around here instead of just passing this debt on to the next generation.

I reserve the remainder of our time.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a very important issue--access for our military recruiters on our high school campuses.

Later today, I will introduce a resolution in support of our military recruiters.

I rise and stand here today in a country free from tyranny, free from dictatorship, and free from oppression. I stand here today protected by the rights that are guaranteed to me by the Constitution of the United States. I am free to stand here because I am protected by the men and women of our nation's Armed Forces. It is because of our Nation's military that I enjoy the freedoms that are laid out in our country's Constitution.

These freedoms are enjoyed by every citizen of this great country.

The No Child Left Behind Act contains a provision that provides military recruiters and college and university recruiters with access to some student information. The intent behind this provision was to ensure that military recruiters were put on a level playing field with recruiters from our Nation's colleges and universities. At the time this language was included in NCLB military recruiters across the country were being denied access to student information that college and university recruiters were given full access to.

The text contained in No Child Left Behind is very simple. It states that ``each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide, on a request made by military recruiters or an institution of higher education, access to secondary school students' names, addresses, and telephone listings.''

Recently, there have been numerous news reports on this topic. The debate

has swirled around a provision also in NCLB that allows a student or parent to request that contact information not be released to recruiters. School districts are required to inform parents and students that they have the option to make this request.

In some areas the debate on this provision has gone much further. The city of San Francisco recently voted in favor of Measure I, a symbolic measure that opposes, but does not forbid, military recruiting on public high school or college campuses. The city cannot forbid military recruiting at public high schools as doing so would put the schools at risk of losing all federal funding. I cannot fathom why the city passed this Measure. Students in San Francisco should have access to the same information that all other students have, and should be allowed to hear what the military has to offer them.

I understand the concerns surrounding privacy of personal information in today's society. However, I find it appalling that people have taken this provision and used it to rally against our troops, against our military system, and against our President.

We are here today because we are secured by the presence of our military that protects our freedoms. My question is why are we so frightened by the very instrument that helps keep us free?

Service in our armed forces is 100 percent voluntary and has been since the end of the Vietnam War. In order to maintain a voluntary force, the services must offer incentives to allow them to compete with the private sector for young, bright students about to graduate from high school. Recruiters search for the best and the brightest in our Nation's high schools to keep our forces strong and able to fight the forces that are against our way of life.

In the last 30 years, millions of young Americans have been given technical skills, received money for college tuition and preferred loans for first-time home purchases by choosing to serve in our military. Not only are these young soldiers given skills that can lead them to future employment, they are also given unique leadership training. Our military trains leaders not just for war, but for success in life.

Yet, it is perplexing to me that many parents today seem to look at military service as being akin to joining a radical cult or a violent gang. Military recruiters are going to our Nation's high schools to inform high school students of the opportunities that are available in our Armed Forces. Military recruiters are on campuses to provide information to students that is often not available in the mainstream media or in many high school counseling offices. Military recruiters are on high school campuses to dispel the many myths that surround service opportunities in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines and Coast Guard.

Some parents are concerned about reports of recruiter abuse. In fact, following televised reports of recruiter abuse, the U.S. Army stopped recruiting activities for one day to review procedures that its 7,500 recruiters use.

In one case the network reported a recruiter suggesting how a volunteer might cheat to pass a drug test, and in another, a sergeant threatened a prospect with arrest if he didn't report to a recruiting station. Two cases out of 7,500 Army recruiters operating out of some 1,700 recruiting stations nationwide prompted the Army to stand down, to refocus recruiters on their mission, reinforcing the Army's core values, and ensure its procedures were carried out consistently at all recruiting stations. It sounds like a pretty responsible reaction to me. It sounds like an institution concerned about doing things the right way.

We must not forget the brave young men and women who do sign up for a tour of duty with the military. They swear to uphold and to protect the Constitution. We must not forget they take that duty seriously. They protect each and every one of us from outside threats, not just threats of violence but also threats to our constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and religion.

In his book ``The Greatest Generation,'' Tom Brokaw recounts a generation of Americans who sacrificed all they had to preserve our freedoms. Young men even went so far as to lie about their age so they could enjoy the honor of fighting for our country in World War II. Their country needed them, and they responded with uncommon valor and courage. The crucible of war formed who we are as a country today. Today, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines stand on the shoulders of those warriors. We celebrate their accomplishments in movies and books. We regale them with the honors they earned and deserve. I wonder what sort of message we are sending to today's youth if we honor the soldiers of yesterday but shun the soldiers of today.

My fear is that freedom is becoming almost too free, too entitled to more and more Americans. As long as we are free to switch cell phone service or download music from any Web site, we believe our freedoms are intact. But freedom is about so much more than that. Freedom is having the ability to speak our mind and stand for what we believe. Freedom means having the right to publicly disagree with the decisions of elected leaders. Freedom is a right, but it comes with a responsibility.

As a parent, I have the direct responsibility to teach my children about the honor in serving our fellow man, our community, and in serving our country. As parents, from the time our children are born, we worry about their health, the friends they keep, the decisions they make, and the grades they bring home from school. We worry about drugs, letting them drive, and about preparing them for a life after mom and dad. But when we shield young adults from the things that scare us as parents, we belittle our children. It is our responsibility to share the world with our children, in many cases, the good with the bad. It is our responsibility to instill in them a sense of pride in our country and in the freedom we enjoy.

We cannot shield our children from information about military service because in doing so, we underestimate our children's capacity to judge for themselves what their future should be. It is vital that our young adults in high school have access not only to future employment and educational opportunities but also to the opportunities provided in the U.S. military. And most importantly, it is absolutely necessary that our Nation's military have the opportunity to recruit the best and the brightest our Nation has to offer. If we continue to discriminate against our military recruiters, we risk undermining the well-being of our military. We risk fracturing the base on which our Army, our Navy, our Air Force and our Marines is built. It is vital that recruiters have access to our Nation's young adults to continue the traditions of our Armed Forces.

I yield the floor.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, my home State of Nevada is a State that is friendly to business. We pride ourselves on the opportunities that businesses have to thrive and grow in our State, while providing an excellent quality of life for employees and their families. As chairman of the Republican High Tech Task Force, I come into contact with many companies, all who hear my pitch for why they should expand into Nevada. But as good as businesses have it in Nevada, or if they move to Nevada, what we do here in Washington, DC will ultimately help make or break their success. And when businesses fail to thrive, so does our economy.

Investors in a business in California may be sitting down today to determine whether their 2-year plan includes expanding to Nevada with, for instance, a manufacturing plant that will employ 200 people. They are excited about the possibilities, but there are too many blank spaces when it comes time to crunch the numbers. Weighing heavily in their calculations, they are concerned that the current dividends and capital gains tax rates will expire in 2008. Because of the uncertainty of those critical factors, they are leery about the prospects.

They will make that decision about expanding and reinvesting in their businesses today. Not next year and not the year after that. Today. But we have tied one hand behind their back. We are standing in the way of their growth and potential if we do not extend the dividends and capital gains tax rates. They need that assurance today so that they can expand, create jobs, and help our economy continue to grow.

The economic growth we have seen since lower tax rates were enacted in the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 is exactly why we must extend the rates. Dividend distributions are up. Corporate investment in new property, plant, and equipment has surged. The economy has grown for 10 consecutive quarters.

These are impressive results, and they are not just about business succeeding. The impact is being felt by families, seniors, and low- income individuals. With more than 50 percent--50 percent--of American households owning stocks or mutual funds, the reach of dividends and capital gains rates is significant. Today, many senior citizens rely on dividends and capital gains to supplement their Social Security. And lower and middle-income families are benefiting as well.

Without this extension, our economy will take a hit, and so will working families across Nevada. Instead of closing doors on them, we need to create certainty in our Tax Code and opportunity for our economy. Although the tax rates don't expire until 2008, we don't have the luxury of waiting 2 years to extend this. By then, too many investors and businesses will have made their decisions not to grow, not to build, and not to hire. It will be too late.

We are part of a global economy that is constantly moving and changing. If we don't allow investment to fuel our competitiveness and innovation, we will pay the price, and so will future generations.

It is not just one business in California deciding whether to move to Nevada, and it is not just the 200 employees who could have found work there; it is about investors and companies across our Nation and it is about working families throughout this country, and it is about the future of our economy.

There aren't many factors that Congress controls when it comes to capital and business investment. This is one of them, and we must join together to ensure continued economic growth.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to speak. We are debating a budget point of order. People in America are thinking this is some kind of a technical jargon that Senators are using. What does it mean?

A budget point of order is a parliamentary rule that can be used to make sure that the Senate carefully weighs whether we are putting undue burdens and obligations on future Congresses, which obviously means to future generations of Americans.

We are raising--and I have raised--this budget point of order today. I will be the first one to admit, it is a very technical budget point of order. But let me explain the reasons I believe it is a real budget point of order in its effect, stopping huge obligations by this Government in the future.

In the wisdom, I believe, of the Senate in last year's budget, we put in a budget point of order that would say beyond 10 years, if there is spending of more than $5 billion obligated, a bill would be subject to a budget point of order. It is because it had become practice around here to make things kind of ramp up, and, then, in the future spend the money so it did not look as though we were spending money now. It looked as though things were either budget neutral or had very little impact on the budget.

I said the other day on this very floor, talking about what is going to happen with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, as the baby boomers retire in this country, it is a serious problem we are facing. If there is a problem with this trust fund--which many people believe there will be a huge problem with this trust fund, that it will be grossly underfunded--if the problem ends up coming back to the taxpayer, it will happen at a time when the baby boomers are starting to retire.

I know the Presiding Officer from South Carolina is one of the most fiscally responsible people in this body. I have followed his short record in the Senate and know how passionate he is about our entitlement programs. I feel the same way he does. But with that looming problem of the baby boomers coming up, the last thing we can afford to do is to enact a bill that potentially could have a major impact--literally, maybe with a number in the hundreds of billions of dollars--that could have a drain on our Government.

The Senator from Pennsylvania says there are no Federal revenues at stake here, the trust fund does not allow for that. Here is why I think it is a real budget point of order. I have been around this place long enough--I have only been here in the Senate 5 years, and in the House before that 4 years, but that is long enough to see how this town works. The Congress is creating this trust fund. If this trust fund runs out of money and there are still victims around, the people in this very body will stand up and say: Congress created the problem, Congress needs to fix the problem. Everybody will join in because there will be victims and people will have posters of victims out there. And there are real victims, people who are suffering, people who are not getting the help they need today. That is why I believe this is a real budget point of order because I think the Congress will act and will give the money to supplement the trust fund. It will not be their money; it will be the taxpayers' money. But they will give the money.

Now, I have heard a lot of people come down here and say why there is a problem. The fact is, we have a broken legal system that needs to be fixed. The trial lawyers in this country have discovered these class action lawsuits: Bring your Rolodex in and we will see who we can sue. And so many people who are not victims are clogging up the courts, who I believe are led there by unscrupulous lawyers. It is blocking real victims from receiving compensation.

It has been said that many businesses have gone out of business. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee has argued one of the reasons we need the trust fund is because a lot of businesses have gone out of business so there is nobody left to sue. Why did they go out of business in the first place? It is because of frivolous lawsuits, having to spend millions and millions of dollars defending themselves. In a lot of these cases, the businesses had nothing to do with asbestos.

I remember this one company that came in to visit me. They were an insurance company thinking of getting into insuring folks in the asbestos field. So they did a study. They came to the conclusion it was too risky, and they decided not to go into that business. I forget the exact figure, but I know since that time they have paid hundreds of millions of dollars out defending themselves because they did not release the study.

This was their own internal document they used to decide whether they were going to go into a certain business. But because they did not release the study, trial lawyers brought them in to the courts and sued them. In many cases, it is cheaper to settle than it is to defend yourself in court. So they paid out umpteen millions of dollars.

The problem with that is insurance companies are a passthrough. Americans are paying the bills. They are just a company that takes in premiums and pays out claims. They are there to make a profit. And if they have to pay things out, they have to raise the premiums, which we all pay.

So we know there is a serious problem. We know it has been caused because of a bad system, and we need to fix the system. I am the first one who wants to stand up here to fix the system. The alliance that has been formed here to try to support this budget point of order is a little strange. There are some fiscal conservatives. There are some people who support the trial lawyers. I have never been exactly claimed by the trial lawyers as being one of their friends, and I feel a little uncomfortable to be in this position, to be honest with you. But I am standing up for this budget point of order because I believe this bill is fiscally irresponsible to the taxpayers into the future.

Now, I want to address one other portion or one other thought no one has addressed on the floor of the Senate. I was in the House of Representatives for 4 years, and there I served on the Ways and Means Committee. The Constitution of the United States says something very clear. It is a very simple writing. That is the beauty of the Constitution, how simple the writing is. Section 7 of article I of the Constitution states:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House

of Representatives. . . .

That is a very simple statement. In the letter to the budget chairman, the Congressional Budget Office says:

CBO expects those sums--

Talking about the sums for the trust fund--

would be treated in the budget as Federal revenues.

Section 7:

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House

of Representatives.

Any Member of the House of Representatives can raise this constitutional question. I cannot remember a time when somebody raised this constitutional question when the House of Representatives did not support it. It is called a blue slip. I raised one when I was there. It was on the nuclear waste bill that was up. I raised that budget point of order, and that was at a time when the vast majority of House Members supported the nuclear waste bill. Yet they supported me on that blue slip, that constitutional question, because they wanted to protect their rights as a body.

Well, beyond the budget point of order, we may be spinning our wheels because this trust fund raises revenues, and it is the prerogative of the House of Representatives to start a bill like that. So even beyond the budget point of order, we may be wasting our time with this bill because of the trust fund that has been set up.

So I encourage my colleagues, let's sustain this budget point of order and start over. Let's get a good medical criteria bill, work in a bipartisan fashion, get together and limit it.

Let's make sure that victims of asbestosis and mesothelioma are compensated. Let's get rid of all of the phony claims. It will quit clogging up our court system. We won't have all these lawyers getting rich over all these class action lawsuits. We will actually get the victims their just compensation.

If we join together and get something done and quit making partisan political points, I believe the actual victims will be better off, but so will those businesses that are threatened to go out of existence even as we speak.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

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

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

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

Yes.

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

I object.

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

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

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

It was with great reluctance that I raised this budget point of order. I have a great deal of respect for Senator Specter and believe there is a great need to enact asbestos legal reform. There are companies that are shutting down. Many of the current tort claims are fraudulent. There are victims who are not getting the compensation they need and deserve.

The asbestos crisis is a serious problem that is threatening the economy of the United States. I recognize that. I voted for the Cornyn substitute because I believed it was a better answer to help the United States, our economy, and the victims. The Hippocratic oath, to first do no harm, has been mentioned on this floor before. Unfortunately, this Chamber has, on many occasions, done more harm than good. There is so much unpredictability in this bill that my fear is we are considering doing far more harm than the current system.

In the December 19 letter written to Senator Specter from the Congressional Budget Office, that Senator Specter and Senator Conrad were just talking about, it says:

There is a significant likelihood that the fund's revenues

would fall short of the amount needed to pay valid claims,

debt service, and administrative costs. There is also some

likelihood that the fund's revenues would be sufficient.

So there is a significant likelihood that they won't be enough and some likelihood that they will. CBO's final conclusion is that they cannot predict the Budget impact of this bill with any degree of certainty. We have all seen the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Tax Committee's work product. It is put together by hard-working folks who do their best to estimate. But I have not seen their estimates turn out to be accurate very often. This is because what they do is an incredibly inexact science. What they are trying to estimate in this bill is even less precise, less exact of a science than what they normally do. Just a given example with respect to JCT, I had a tax provision about a year and a half ago that had to do with bringing money from overseas back into this country. The CBO estimated it would result in $125 billion to $140 billion coming back into this country for investment. We thought that estimate was very low. It turns out we were right. To date over $350 billion has been reinvested in the United States, far in excess of the estimate.

Now if CBO's estimate is off on this particular legislation to the degree that the estimate was on my legislation, we are in serious trouble. That is why the CBO says, and the Democratic ranking member and the Republican Budget Committee chairman say, the point of order is valid and lies on this bill.

I think there are problems with this bill. One problem has to do with the medical criteria. It allows all kinds of people to recover without any degree of certainty as to how many future claimants there will be. The potential is huge. So despite my strong desire to fix this legislation, I believe that it cannot be fixed. I wish Senator Cornyn's substitute would have passed. I thought that was the right place to start working on solving the asbestos crisis. This body could have worked with that legislation. We could have made sensible changes to move that version forward. I don't think that the underlying piece of legislation can be fixed to provide any certainty. I don't see how we can ensure that the taxpayers do not end up with a huge mess that includes a great deal of debt for future generations.

When will the uncertainty occur? Will it be 8, 10, 12, or 15 years from now? I don't know. When the uncertainty comes, the debt that the taxpayers will be asked to shoulder could be enormous. And this bill could come due at exactly the wrong time. When we can least afford it. It will come due when the baby boomers start affecting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I respect the chairman of the Judiciary Committee a great deal for the work he has done, and I know he has tried to work in a bipartisan fashion and with many industries. They say politics makes strange bedfellows. This legislation proves that to be true. When the positions that we take on this bill or on the point of order do not break down by party lines and when liberals and conservatives are likewise divided, you know that this bill has strange dynamics. Industries that are normally allies are also split on this

bill. Trial lawyers are split on this bill. The reasons for such a split are a result of the uncertainty about this piece of legislation.

I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues to allow me to speak for a few minutes. I look forward to the debate on this point of order. I am not sure exactly when we will vote on it, but I hope the point of order is sustained.

I yield the floor.