Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr., to the U.S. Supreme Court.

One of the greatest honors and responsibilities of a Senator is a vote we cast to confirm judges. Our role is not one that I take lightly. It is with deep respect for the laws of this Nation and for the highest Court in our land that I stand before the Senate today.

As Senators, we are tasked with the specific duty in the checks and balances system of our Government. It is with our advice and consent that a President's nominee is confirmed or rejected. This is how it has worked since the Constitution was adopted. Our forefathers, with great brilliance and foresight, wanted to ensure that no one person wielded excessive power. However, at the same time, it is the President who selects a nominee. He earns that power as the elected leader of the United States. President Bush nominated Judge Alito. We are here to consider that nomination.

I had the opportunity to meet Judge Alito and I find he is extremely qualified to join the highest Court in this land. His experience, his temperament, his understanding of the role of the Court and his respect for the law make him an admirable candidate who I believe will serve this Nation well.

The single most important factor that went into my decision of whether to support Judge Alito has to do with the Justices' role on the Court. The job of the judiciary is to apply and interpret the Constitution and the laws of the land. Unfortunately, not everyone sees it that way. That is why judicial activism has become so rampant in this country. In no way is it the judiciary's purview to make laws. That is clearly the job of legislators. Legislators are to make the laws and judges apply them. Judge Alito understands this principle and has demonstrated so throughout his esteemed career.

In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee he spoke about the limited role of the judiciary. Judge Alito stated it should always be asking itself whether it has strayed over the bounds, whether it is invading the authority of the legislature, for example, whether it is making policy judgments rather than interpreting the law. That has to be a constant process of reexamination of the judges.

During Judge Alito's confirmation hearing, Democrats tried to make the case that judicial precedent is more important than the Constitution itself. Most Americans believe the words of the Constitution should have real meaning. A strict constructionist approach to interpreting the Constitution is necessary for the consistent application of our laws. How can we as the legislative branch do our jobs effectively when the judicial branch is free to provide an expansive reading of the Constitution at any moment? I don't believe we can.

For this reason, we need judges who value the Constitution first. Precedent is a necessary tool to ensure consistent application of the laws, but precedent should not be held so high that we prohibit judges from revisiting bad precedent. The history of the Supreme Court supports this idea. If bad precedent could not be overturned, Plessy v. Ferguson would still stand and racial segregation would still be legal in this country. That thought is truly reprehensible. The Supreme Court, in fact, has overturned its own precedent at least 225 times. That is nearly once per year.

I support Judge Alito's nomination because his testimony demonstrates his understanding of the principle that the Constitution, and not precedent, is preeminent.

In addition to his clear and committed approach to interpreting laws and not being a judicial activist, I think the testimony and support of his colleagues speaks volumes about what we can expect from Justice Alito.

Judge Maryanne Trump Barry has served on the Third Circuit with Judge Alito since President Bill Clinton appointed her in 1999. She also worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office with Judge Alito in the late 1970s. About his service as U.S. attorney, she stated:

Samuel Alito set a standard of excellence that was

contagious--his commitment to

doing the right thing, never playing fast and loose with the

record, never taking a shortcut, his emphasis on first-rate

work, his fundamental decency.

Judge Aldisert of the Third Circuit, appointed by President Johnson, has worked with Judge Alito for 15 years. He testified about the experience of those who have served with Judge Alito. Because of Judge Alito's work on the bench, he stated:

. . . we who are his colleagues are convinced that he will

also be a great justice.

The character, the qualifications, and the commitment of Judge Alito are not in question by anybody in this room. His long history of public service has proven that. He has served our judicial system and our Nation with the utmost honor, and we can expect him to continue that legacy from our Supreme Court.

I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to consider their vote and to avoid partisanship. Consider Judge Alito's qualifications. Consider his respect for the Constitution. Senator Kyl from Arizona preceded me on the floor. He talked about the dangerous precedent that would be set if this body were to depart from the standard of judging nominees based on their experience in favor of a partisan approach. Republicans, back in the 1990s, voted for two people they knew would be liberal. The basis on which Judge Alito's confirmation is based will likely determine the basis by which all future nominees will be judged.

What I think is important to consider is not how someone will rule but rather on their judicial approach with respect to the words of the Constitution, at the writing of the Founders, at the principles on which America was founded. That is the judicial approach I want somebody to have on the Highest Court in the land. And that is the judicial approach I believe--no one knows for sure, but I believe-- Samuel Alito has and how he will make judgments as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

So I urge all my colleagues to support his nomination. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the deficit reduction bill that we have before us after many hours of people working together, compromising. You could go through the bill and pick out parts that you like and you don't like, so I want to put this in a bigger picture. I want to step back and look at what we are dealing with as a country.

Over the next 5 years, we were slated to spend, before this bill, and if this bill does not go into effect, we will spend $13.8 trillion. If we pass this bill, this deficit reduction bill, we will still spend $13.76 trillion. Those numbers are impossible to understand. Impossible. They are too big. Let's try to get our arms around a little bit of a number.

I always like to talk about $1 trillion with high school kids so they can understand it. I always ask them: Do you think a million dollars is a lot of money? And of course a lot of us think a million dollars is a lot of money. I ask them: If you spent a million dollars a day, do you think you would be spending a lot of money? And the unanimous answer of high school kids is: Of course that is a lot of money. I tell them that to get to $1 trillion, not $13.76 trillion but just $1 trillion, you would have to start spending a million dollars a day, start at the time Jesus was born, go until today and you still would not be at $1 trillion.

What we are trying to do is to shave and slow the rate of growth of spending a tiny bit. It is almost insignificant.

But what is significant in the bill is that we are starting to take on entitlement spending. Entitlement spending now is two-thirds of the Federal budget, and it is slated to grow into an ever-increasing share of the Federal budget in the future. We all know that. Republicans, Democrats, it doesn't matter who looks at the numbers, entitlements will gobble up the entire Federal budget.

If you study democratic forms of government--and I know Senator Byrd, who has spoken, has done a lot of this--if you study democratic forms of government, they always collapse due to two reasons, and they happen in a particular order. The first thing that happens is there is a moral collapse in the country, and it is always followed by an economic collapse.

If you think about it, it makes sense that it happens in that order. You see, if you have people who are not moral enough to think about the next generation, what they do is they elect people to office who will give them what they want by borrowing from the Treasury; in other words, borrowing from the next generations. When the debt gets too large, this debt gets so large the economy cannot handle it and you end up with all kinds of economic problems and finally an economic collapse.

We are headed for that if we do not get entitlements under control. That is why this bill, even though it is a small amount of money--if you listen to the other side, you would think the sky is falling, as far as spending is concerned.

This is a tiny, insignificant almost, amount of money. But it is significant in that we are finally starting to tackle entitlement spending. That is why this bill is so important.

So when we hear the debate on both sides, boil it down to this very simple thing. Are we going to care enough about the next generation to finally start saying no to some of this big Federal Government spending? I believe it is time this body stands up. Instead of being selfish, instead of giving our voters what they want so they keep sending us back here, let's stand up and do what is right and think about future generations.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to raise an issue of clarification regarding section 5107, Revisions to Payments for Therapy Services. It is my understanding that this provision retains the therapy limitation of $1,740 for outpatient physical therapy and speech-language pathology and $1,740 for outpatient occupation therapy but provides an exception process for services that are needed by a beneficiary over this amount. This exception process is expressly to permit services above the cap that are medically necessary. Mr. President, I ask the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee whether this interpretation is correct.

In addition, there should be no delay in implementing the exceptions process. CMS should work diligently to develop a process to determine whether a service is medically necessary. This process could include a ``code modifier'' and standard audit review of medical necessity and reflect similar processes that currently exist. It is my understanding, based on the language, that if CMS does not develop a process, a request for therapy services will be deemed medically necessary if CMS does not act on the request within 10 business days. Further, the language also appears to permit a beneficiary to request medically necessary coverage outside the caps at the

outset of treatment. If CMS does not develop a process and fails to act within 10 business days, then the beneficiary can receive covered therapy services in excess of the cap. I would hope that further information from CMS regarding the exceptions process is laid out as we approach January 1, 2006, when the therapy caps go into effect. Senator Grassley, do you agree with these statements?

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss important new innovation legislation that will address concerns about our country and our ability to compete in the global marketplace. Today, Senator Lieberman and I introduced the National Innovation bill with bipartisan support from Senator Lugar, Senator DeWine, Senator Bingaman, Senator Allen, Senator Alexander, Senator Chambliss, Senator Bayh, Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Kohl, Senator Cornyn, Senator Isakson, Senator Ben Nelson Senator Leahy and Senator Smith as original cosponsors. We encourage all of our colleagues to join us in this important effort.

Today the World is becoming dramatically more interconnected and competitive. In order to remain globally competitive, the United States must continue to lead the world's innovation. Innovation fosters the new ideas, technologies, and processes that lead to better jobs, higher wages, and a higher standard of living.

Unfortunately, in the disciplines that foster innovation in the 21st Century--science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--America is steadily losing its global edge:

The trouble signs are numerous:

Less than 6 percent of high school seniors plan to pursue engineering degrees, down from 36 percent from a decade ago.

In 2000, only 17 percent of undergraduate degrees earned in the United States were in the hard sciences.

In the same year 56 percent of China's undergraduate degrees were in the hard sciences.

Next year, China will likely produce six times the number of engineers that we will graduate in the United States.

We must address these long-term competitive challenges to America's economic vitality and national security now or risk losing our essential leadership position on innovation. The National Innovation Act will help America meet these interconnected challenges by addressing three primary areas of importance to maintaining and improving United States' innovation in the 21st Century: 1. increasing research investment 2. increasing science and technology talent, and 3. developing an innovation infrastructure.

I am a fiscal conservative, and current Federal budget constraints will require prioritization of spending. New programs must be funded through existing funds or through identifiable funding offsets whenever possible. I look forward to working with Senator Lieberman and the other cosponsors in this effort.

Increased support of basic research through should be a national priority.

Our bill would increases the national commitment to basic research by nearly doubling research funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) by FY 2011. The National Science Foundation plays a critical role in underwriting basic research at colleges, universities, and other institutions throughout our nation.

NSF supported basic research in chemistry, physics, nanotechnology, and semiconductor manufacturing has brought about some of the most significant innovations of the last 20 years. For example, the World Wide Web, magnetic resonance imaging and fiber optics technology all emerged through basic research projects that received NSF funding.

Because our nation's long-term future economic strength depends in large part on the support we give to basic research projects now, the National Innovation bill also establishes the Innovation Acceleration Grants Program, which encourages Federal agencies funding research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to allocate at least 3 percent of

their Research and Development (R&D) budgets to grants directed toward high-risk frontier research.

Three percent of overall R&D budgets from federal agencies may not seem like a lot, but this is an important starting point. Although our bill does not specifically require it, I encourage federal agencies engaged in R&D to dedicate an even greater percentage of their budgets to basic research.

Along with strategic investment in the innovation economy, the Federal Government also needs to examine various barriers that impede innovation in the United States.

Our bill instructs the National Academy of Sciences to study factors such as tort litigation that may impede American businesses from engaging in innovation risk-taking and provide recommendations on how best to address these issues. Litigation, taxation, and the substantial costs of regulatory compliance impact innovation and need to be addressed.

Innovation must be a major priority as the United States looks to retain and strengthen its economic leadership and national security in the 21st Century. The National Innovation Act will help ensure that the Federal Government does exactly that by increasing research investment, increasing science and technology talent, and developing an innovation infrastructure.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss important new innovation legislation that will address concerns about our country and our ability to compete in the global marketplace. Today, Senator Lieberman and I introduced the National Innovation bill with bipartisan support from Senator Lugar, Senator DeWine, Senator Bingaman, Senator Allen, Senator Alexander, Senator Chambliss, Senator Bayh, Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Kohl, Senator Cornyn, Senator Isakson, Senator Ben Nelson Senator Leahy and Senator Smith as original cosponsors. We encourage all of our colleagues to join us in this important effort.

Today the World is becoming dramatically more interconnected and competitive. In order to remain globally competitive, the United States must continue to lead the world's innovation. Innovation fosters the new ideas, technologies, and processes that lead to better jobs, higher wages, and a higher standard of living.

Unfortunately, in the disciplines that foster innovation in the 21st Century--science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--America is steadily losing its global edge:

The trouble signs are numerous:

Less than 6 percent of high school seniors plan to pursue engineering degrees, down from 36 percent from a decade ago.

In 2000, only 17 percent of undergraduate degrees earned in the United States were in the hard sciences.

In the same year 56 percent of China's undergraduate degrees were in the hard sciences.

Next year, China will likely produce six times the number of engineers that we will graduate in the United States.

We must address these long-term competitive challenges to America's economic vitality and national security now or risk losing our essential leadership position on innovation. The National Innovation Act will help America meet these interconnected challenges by addressing three primary areas of importance to maintaining and improving United States' innovation in the 21st Century: 1. increasing research investment 2. increasing science and technology talent, and 3. developing an innovation infrastructure.

I am a fiscal conservative, and current Federal budget constraints will require prioritization of spending. New programs must be funded through existing funds or through identifiable funding offsets whenever possible. I look forward to working with Senator Lieberman and the other cosponsors in this effort.

Increased support of basic research through should be a national priority.

Our bill would increases the national commitment to basic research by nearly doubling research funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) by FY 2011. The National Science Foundation plays a critical role in underwriting basic research at colleges, universities, and other institutions throughout our nation.

NSF supported basic research in chemistry, physics, nanotechnology, and semiconductor manufacturing has brought about some of the most significant innovations of the last 20 years. For example, the World Wide Web, magnetic resonance imaging and fiber optics technology all emerged through basic research projects that received NSF funding.

Because our nation's long-term future economic strength depends in large part on the support we give to basic research projects now, the National Innovation bill also establishes the Innovation Acceleration Grants Program, which encourages Federal agencies funding research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to allocate at least 3 percent of

their Research and Development (R&D) budgets to grants directed toward high-risk frontier research.

Three percent of overall R&D budgets from federal agencies may not seem like a lot, but this is an important starting point. Although our bill does not specifically require it, I encourage federal agencies engaged in R&D to dedicate an even greater percentage of their budgets to basic research.

Along with strategic investment in the innovation economy, the Federal Government also needs to examine various barriers that impede innovation in the United States.

Our bill instructs the National Academy of Sciences to study factors such as tort litigation that may impede American businesses from engaging in innovation risk-taking and provide recommendations on how best to address these issues. Litigation, taxation, and the substantial costs of regulatory compliance impact innovation and need to be addressed.

Innovation must be a major priority as the United States looks to retain and strengthen its economic leadership and national security in the 21st Century. The National Innovation Act will help ensure that the Federal Government does exactly that by increasing research investment, increasing science and technology talent, and developing an innovation infrastructure.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, will you notify me when I have used 2 minutes? I will try to keep this within 2 minutes. I wish to make a couple of points.

I am a licensed veterinarian and am still currently licensed. When I was first elected to the Senate, when we were going through the ethics routine very similar to what they have in the House of Representatives, I still owned an animal hospital when I was in the House of Representatives. I never really gave it much thought because I heard you can own a small business. That is what it was--a small business. But as I was listening to the ethics briefings when I was elected to the Senate, I said: I don't think I can own my animal hospital. I don't think I can be partners anymore in the animal hospital.

What I liked about owning my animal hospital was that I thought it kept me in touch with the real world; that we passed the Congressional Accountability Act because Congress was so out of touch with the laws that we passed up here for the real world. We were so out of touch, we said at least we should live under the same laws in our offices as they live out in the real world. I thought my veterinary practice allowed me to stay in touch with the real world much better.

But I went to the Senate Ethics Committee and asked them about it, and they said, sure enough, you are going to have to sell the animal hospital. That wasn't something that I counted on when I was elected.

I spoke to Don Nickles when it was all done, and he said he thought it was a disservice and that I should have fought it at the time, that I should have fought for a rule change back then.

I apologize to Dr. Coburn for not fighting for a rule change back then. I don't think Dr. Coburn wants to go as far as he actually should be able to go or I should have been able to go. All he wants to do is break even because of the high cost of medical malpractice today and to be able to make enough money to be able to pay his premiums and stay in touch with his patients and practice medicine. Health care costs in this country are skyrocketing, and we need people who understand the practice of medicine and our health care system in the United States.

I wholeheartedly support the Senator from Oklahoma in his efforts to do this. This is not the same as practicing law where you have somebody come down and lay down a retainer of $100,000 or $200,000 with the look of corruption that we may be trying to avoid. The practice of veterinary medicine isn't like that, and the practice of human medicine is not like that. This is somebody who will be a much better Senator if we allow him to practice; somebody who is going to be a better doctor. He is not going to be here forever, and we want him to keep his skills up because when he goes back to the practice of full-time medicine, he will still stay solvent.

As we go forward in the debate, I hope people keep this in mind: Let's us put some common sense back in here. He is one of most ethical people I have ever met in my life, and to allow him to practice will make this institution a better institution.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, prior to having the 6 minutes prior to the vote but between now and the time that votes will occur, will there also be time to debate my amendment?

Madam President, may I ask unanimous consent it be modified so that at least 15 minutes between now and the vote would be reserved for debate on the Ensign amendment?

Yes.

Madam President, I say to my friend from Michigan, our amendment seeks to clarify and to reinforce the Executive Order No. 11850, including section 1, as well as the examples in (a), (b), (c), and (d), used as examples where the riot control agents are able to be used.

It is very clear that our military is allowed to use riot control agents based on this Executive order in these particular examples as a defensive mode to save civilian lives, for example.

We are trying to clarify for our military and ask the Defense Department to lay out clear guidelines and clear training so the average person on the ground knows exactly when they can and when they cannot use these riot control agents.

The Senator is correct; we are not trying to change any part of the Executive order. All we are trying to do is to clarify it so the average soldier, marine on the ground knows exactly when they can and when they cannot use it.

We are calling on the Defense Department to clarify for them so this very valuable tool to save lives, both civilian and military, can be employed for a defensive purpose.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 2473 to Amendment No. 2433

I have spoken to the manager of the bill, and he would like to accommodate the ability of the Senator to have the secondary amendment offered before all time is yielded back. When the Senator is ready--I have spoken to the chairman and he is willing to work on that.

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

I want to inform the Senator from North Dakota that, hopefully, when we come back for a couple

days in December, as the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, I plan on holding hearings on exactly this. I plan on pulling that curtain back. I plan on getting into the investigation in the same way as Harry Truman. If it happens to be it is embarrassing to the administration, we are going to find out the truth on this--just like Harry Truman went after those cost-plus contracts in those days. It is not only the soul- source aspect, it is also the fact they are cost-plus contracts.

We are going to do a thorough investigation through the subcommittee, and I am committing to the Senator that the things he is talking about right now will be fully investigated by our committee, and we are going to uphold our oversight responsibility of this administration.

Mr. President, I ask that Senator Allard be added as cosponsor to my amendment.

Mr. President, very simply, this amendment seeks to clarify what the policy of the United States has been since 1975, that our military would be able to use riot control agents--in this case tear gas--for defensive purposes. That has been the policy of the United States. But because of some interpretations, our military is not able to use tear gas. They do not take it with them, they do not train with it, and in many cases tear gas--just as police forces use it all over the world--would save civilian lives as well as lives of the members of our military.

This is absolutely a critical amendment to save lives of Americans and for those civilians who, when our military kills them--and unfortunately these things happen--it makes us look bad as a country.

This is a critical amendment that we need to adopt.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the progress America is making in the global war on terrorism and in particular on the progress being made in Iraq.

Recently we passed a solemn benchmark. Two thousand of our servicemen and women have paid the ultimate price in defense of freedom. A vocal minority contend that these casualties were in vain. They claim we are in Iraq for all the wrong reasons. Further, they say that since there have been no weapons of mass destruction uncovered in Iraq that the administration obviously lied to get Americans behind the initial war effort. I think it is important that we take a few minutes to recall the world in which we lived prior to taking military action against Saddam Hussein in 2003.

The previous administration was quite clear in their belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Then-President Clinton said:

Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose

is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

Clinton's National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, said of Hussein:

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he

has ten times since 1993.

Even after he left office, Al Gore stated:

We know that [Hussein] has stored secret supplies of

biological and chemical weapons throughout the country.

Madeline Albright said:

The risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use

nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our

allies is the greatest security threat we face.

Let us all remember, Iraq had been in blatant violation of 17 separate United Nations resolutions dating back to the first Persian Gulf War--resolutions which required Iraq to reveal prohibited WMD and missile programs to U.N. inspectors. American and British warplanes were continually fired upon while enforcing U.N.-mandated ``no fly zones'' in Iraq.

In 1993, terrorists detonated a bomb in the garage of the World Trade Center in an attempt to topple this symbol of capitalism.

In 1996, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, housing an Air Force Fighter Wing, were attacked by terrorists. Nineteen U.S. servicemembers lost their lives. Hundreds were wounded.

In 1998, the U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya were bombed by terrorists. Hundreds lost their lives.

In October of 2000, the USS Cole was attacked by terrorists while refueling in Yemen. Seventeen sailors lost their lives. Many more were injured. And, of course, we all remember the day the Pentagon was attacked and the World Trade Center was leveled by terrorists crashing commercial airliners into both structures on 9/11, resulting in more than 3,000 of our fellow citizens being killed and America finally waking up to the reality that is terrorism.

The terrorists had no reason to believe that we would respond to 9/11 because we had not responded in the past. At that time, every country in the free world believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein did nothing to dispel those beliefs. He had actually used chemical weapons on Iranians and on his own citizens.

President Bush could not risk America's future on the hope that a dictator like Hussein, with a track record that included grotesque human rights abuses, aggression against his neighbors, and the harboring and funding of terrorists, could be reformed or indefinitely contained.

In fact, the Senate chose not to risk America's future either. This body voted 77-23 in favor of the resolution allowing President Bush to use force in Iraq. Those voting in the affirmative included the then- Democratic Leader of the Senate, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee and the Democratic nominee for President in the 2004 election.

I have a few quotes I would like to read.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, Congressional Record, October 2002:

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is

working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will

likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . . .

We also should remember we have always underestimated the

progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass

destruction.

He obviously had access to the intelligence that the President had.

Senator John Kerry, Congressional Record, October 2002:

When I vote to give the President of the United States the

authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam

Hussein [it is] because I believe that a deadly arsenal of

weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave

threat to our security. . . .

Senator Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, October 2002:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence

reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his

chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery

capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid,

comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda

members . . . It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,

Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage

biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to

develop nuclear weapons.

Senator Carl Levin, Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing, September 2002:

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a

tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region.

He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is

building weapons of mass destruction and the means of

delivering them.

I could go on. We have lots of quotes, but let's stop for now.

On March 19, 2003, 2 days after our President's televised ultimatum, a 35-nation coalition launched operations to disarm Iraq.

In a matter of weeks, Hussein's decades-old regime had been removed, liberating 25 million Iraqis from one of the world's most brutal tyrannies.

That was 2\1/2\ years ago. Now, because things aren't quite as antiseptic as some would like, there are calls for American troop withdrawal. Again, I think it is important for us to review just how far we've come over the last 2\1/2\ years.

As far as security is concerned, the initial 35-nation coalition that liberated Iraq has increased to include 72 countries.

Iraqi Security Forces are continuing to take a more prominent role in defending their country. One hundred sixteen Iraqi battalions are currently conducting military operations. That's 22 more battalions on line than there were just 3 months ago.

As President Bush has stated numerous times:

Our task is to make the Iraqi units fully capable and

independent. We're building up Iraqi security forces as

quickly as possible, so they can assume the lead in defeating

the terrorists and insurgents. Our strategy can be summed up

this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.

Our assistance to the people of Iraq is not limited to the military. There have been infrastructure improvements as well, including almost 3,500 schools.

Also, there were no commercial TV stations in Iraq before the war; today there are 44.

There were no independent newspapers or magazines in Iraq before the war. Today there are more than 100.

In January of this year, 8 million Iraqi citizens, in the face of violent threats, voted to establish a parliament. Last month, the Iraqis again returned to the polls in large numbers, and almost 10 million this time--more than 60 percent of the registered voters--voted to approve their constitution. This coming December, they will return to the polls to elect a fully constitutional government.

Because of America's leadership, compassion, and sacrifice, the world has witnessed the end of Saddam Hussein's regime and the beginnings of an energetic democracy in Iraq. This fledgling democracy has the ability to transform a region that has been a breeding ground for terrorists.

The world is a safer place because Qadhafi saw the fate of Saddam Hussein and decided Libya was better off with its weapons of mass destruction program under lock and key.

We are safer because the AQ Kahn network has been shut down and is no longer supplying materiel support to Iran and North Korea's nuclear efforts.

We are safer because terrorists and the countries that harbor them know if they threaten the United States, they could be the next ones to feel the force of the U.S. military.

Our word means something now because the President laid a marker down in the sand and stood behind that marker when it was time--when Saddam Hussein did not come forward and

agree to the resolutions that the United Nations had passed.

I believe the more than 2,000 members of our military who have died in service for our Nation in Iraq--and others will surely follow them-- have made our country safer.

I believe history will show in the fullness of time that America was involved in a noble effort that transformed a region and indeed the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Senator Byrd has offered an amendment virtually identical to a piece of legislation that I brought forward because he has the same concerns I have. When I took over the chairmanship of the Readiness Subcommittee, the staff briefed me on various hearings that they do traditionally during the year. One of the hearings, the information that we got at the hearing, this piece of legislation was trying to address. It was the reason I drafted it, because I had literally the identical concerns Senator Byrd has raised today. Nothing he has said have I disagreed with. This happened last year. We used to have one of these hearings a year. I have actually stepped them up to every 6 months. We have a hearing tomorrow in the Readiness Subcommittee on this very issue, as well as others on the business transformation for the military.

The military is a huge bureaucracy that none of us have our arms around. The military doesn't have its arms around its own bureaucracy. There are incredible inefficiencies. The problem is, you get one person in; they are there for a year, maybe two. They say they are going to be making changes. They have been promising to make changes for years. And then nothing happens.

Last year, I was ready to proceed with my legislation. I met with Secretary England, and he asked me for 1 year. He said: Give me a year. I am new in this position. Give me a year. If you are not satisfied at the end of that year, if we haven't made significant progress, then go forward with your legislation.

I reluctantly said: OK. You are new. I liked some of the ideas he was laying out. He was going in the right direction. I said, reluctantly: I will give you the year.

Tomorrow we are having a hearing to see at least what progress they have made in the last 6 to 8 months. Depending on what happens at that hearing--from some of the preliminary results we have received, there is some progress being made--we are going to delve into it much more deeply tomorrow, plus what we see over the next several months. If we are not satisfied, I will be the first person to join the Senator from West Virginia on this legislation next year to create this position.

The reason I thought this was good, that it was a good idea to make this change, was because to have somebody focused on the business goings on at the Department of Defense made good common sense to me. I didn't want to see another layer of bureaucracy created. But with the Deputy Secretary of Defense, I didn't see them focused on the business activities. I saw them focused on warfighting activities--all well and good. We want them focused on that. But these other duties seem to be neglected at the same time.

I commit to the Senator from West Virginia that I am absolutely willing to work with him on this, with the same goals in mind; that is, to reform our Defense Department to make it more efficient, more accountable, more transparent in the way that it actually performs business. It is never going to operate like a business, but we have to get it to operate more like a business than it does today.

I think the spirit of this amendment is absolutely right. I would ask that we would either go the direction of what Senator Warner has suggested or at least wait until next spring, when we go for reauthorizing the Defense Department again next year, to address this issue, simply because I made that personal commitment to Acting Deputy Secretary Gordon England.

I would be more than happy to yield back or engage in a colloquy or whatever the Senator from West Virginia would like at this point.

I thank the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: If I yield the floor, we go directly to the votes?

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

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

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

Mr. President, before I make my full statement, I want my colleagues to know that the amendment that I have sent to the desk is something that we have been working with the administration on for almost 8 months now. I believe we have come up with a compromise that most people in the administration support. It is a very important amendment as far as the foreign policy and the military policy of our country is concerned.

This amendment will allow our soldiers and marines to more effectively carry out their mission on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, while saving both military and civilian lives.

Riot control agents, more commonly referred to as tear gas, can be a more effective alternative to the use of lethal weapons in combat. It is shocking and unacceptable that under current policy our military is banned from using tear gas on the battlefield. Let me restate that. Under current policy, our military is banned from using tear gas on the battlefield.

Police officers in any city in America can use tear gas to avoid the loss of life, but our men and women carrying out the global war on terror cannot. This is not right and it must change.

This restriction on the use of tear gas is the direct result of the bureaucracy's faulty interpretation of the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, an interpretation made by arms control advocates in Brussels and The Hague and regrettably at our own State Department. Under this faulty interpretation, tear gas is considered a chemical weapon. In those isolated cases where it can be used, it requires Presidential authorization. This is wrong. The use of riot control agents in combat for defensive purposes to save lives is wholly consistent with the U.S. obligations under the laws of land warfare and of our treaty obligations.

Retaining this capability was so important to our military leaders that the Senate included a condition in the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention that preserved our right to use tear gas in conflict. Many Members today were in the Senate when this matter was debated. All concurred with the arguments put forward by then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, that giving up this capability is not even worth getting the treaty. Here is what he said:

Nonlethal riot control agents provide a morally correct

option to achieve defensive military objectives without

having to resort to the unnecessary loss of innocent lives.

Sacrificing such an option would be an unacceptable price to

pay for a CW [chemical weapons] treaty.

Senators Lugar, Biden, and others spoke eloquently on this point in a bipartisan manner. Senators knew then, and many do know now, that the use of nonlethal weapons, such as tear gas, is demonstrated routinely to be effective by law enforcement agencies all over the world. It is a moral alternative to the use of lethal force.

In towns and streets throughout Iraq and Afghanistan, marines and soldiers are going house to house in an attempt to flush out hiding terrorists. In carrying out this vital mission, structures are damaged and innocent people are killed. Some of that death and destruction could be avoided if we allowed our military to use tear gas instead of bullets. In other cases, we know of situations where the insurgents have mixed in with innocent civilians, using them as human shields, forcing our fighting men and women to either retreat or fire into a crowd, which is a choice they should not have to make.

I am reminded of a New York Times article, dated June 28 of this year. It chronicled marines clearing a town in Iraq. The article referenced one particular incident where three civilians, a mother and two children, were killed as marines battled an insurgent who had taken the family hostage. Perhaps the use of tear gas would have saved their lives; perhaps not. We will never know that. What we do know is that those marines were not provided every tool with which to carry out this global war on terrorism.

Certainly our image has been tarnished as a nation, and our public diplomacy has suffered every time we use lethal force to clear a room, empty a building or take other actions that wound or kill innocent people. This is unconscionable when nonlethal alternatives are available. Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, described the restriction on the use of riot control agents as a straitjacket. Here is what he said:

We are doing our best to live within the straitjacket that

has been imposed on us on this subject. We are trying to find

ways that non-lethal agents could be used within the law.

He went on to point out that our soldiers and marines are authorized to shoot and to kill people in situations where tear gas is prohibited. This is a lethal lapse in legal judgment. It seems as if some would put the concerns of the global arms control theocracy above the lives of our military personnel. If anybody is watching or listening and they are scratching their head wondering where is the common sense, that is exactly what I thought and what led me to offer this amendment.

In fact, our military has been so spooked about this issue they don't know how to train themselves on Riot Control Agent use on the battlefield. The Tactical Employment of Nonlethal Weapons training manual, dated January 2003, is applicable to all military branches. It specifically reminds all that ``. . . using Riot Control Agents in an armed conflict requires Presidential approval.''

Additionally, the Department of Defense's Joint Doctrine Encyclopedia, dated July 1997, advises that ``Commanders must consider the international ramifications . . . before recommending the use of herbicides or Riot Control Agents.''

Now, there are those who erroneously claim my amendment seeks to change long standing policy on the use of riot control agents in combat and runs counter to U.S. treaty commitments.

In fact, my amendment seeks merely to reaffirm the policy of the United States since 1975, and the Senate's view on this issue from 1997, by stating that it is the policy of the United States that Riot Control Agents are not chemical weapons but are legitimate, legal, and non-lethal alternatives to the use of lethal force. It adds that these tools may be employed by members of the Armed Forces in defensive military modes to save lives.

My amendment further requires the President to submit a one-time report to Congress on the availability and use of Riot Control Agents by our fighting men and women. It includes reporting language that prods the State Department to speak about and advocate the U.S. view on this important life-saving tool in multilateral forums. Finally, my amendment presses the Pentagon to develop this capability, which has languished in our training regimens, our doctrine, and our tactics through lack of use.

I urge all of my colleagues to reaffirm this policy, to reaffirm what the Senate said in 1997, and to send a strong message to our men and women in uniform that the Senate puts their welfare above misguided interpretations of arcane international agreements, that the Senate wants to give them a full range of tools to help them accomplish their mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we want to do so in a manner that doesn't jeopardize their lives or those of innocent civilians.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Virginia that he has stated it exactly right. We are trying to restate the position that the Senate took in 1997, in the Executive Order 11850. It has been the policy of the United States, based on this Executive order, based on what the Senate did with the Chemical Weapons Treaty in 1997. But the problem is there have been lawyers down at the State Department who have interpreted it differently and therefore have put the military in a very difficult position,

that if they used it consistent with former U.S. policy, they could be accused of violating the Chemical Weapons Treaty and be subject to prosecution as individual soldiers.

Mr. President, I would say to the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, frankly, they are not being used today by our military and that is the problem. Therein lies the problem.

We just saw President Bush down in the Summit of the Americas, and they had riots down there and they used these very agents to control the crowds. Even when they had problems at Abu Ghraib prison, these riot control agents were not allowed to be used because people were afraid to use them.

Can you imagine, if you are a first lieutenant or you are a sergeant and you are out there and you know that these things have been allowed in the past, but now the State Department and the military are putting stuff out and there are questions, you are not going to use the thing that may be the most effective at saving lives of the personnel around you, as well as the civilians, because you could be accused potentially of violating the Chemical Weapons Treaty. We are handcuffing the very personnel that this Senate is supposed to be trying to protect.

That is why I believe, as the Senator has correctly pointed out, that this amendment is consistent with the very examples that you pointed out that are in the Executive Order No. 11850 that was signed back in 1975.

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

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

That is correct, Mr. President.

The Senator is correct.

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

Madam President, at the end of 2 minutes, that time being expired, I intend to send a second-degree amendment to the Enzi amendment to the desk. Let me briefly describe it. My amendment addresses the concerns of the Orthodox Union, the Catholic Bishops, and the Council on American Private Education. My amendment clearly establishes an indirect aid program for displaced private school students that meets all the constitutional requirements without placing unworkable and unnecessary restrictions on private schools serving these displaced families. It ensures accountability for the funds and, most important, delivers on the much-needed relief to ensure the restart and operation of schools at all levels in the affected areas.

The 2002 Zellman decision by the Supreme Court clarified that religious schools which accept Government funding do not have to modify their teachings and curricula in order to receive Government funding so long as the Government aid arrives at the school by virtue of an independent choice made by the student and parent, and this amendment complies with that decision and meets all of its constitutional requirements.

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

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

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

Madam President, now that we have been through all that, just to restate, the managers of the underlying amendment believe their proposal is constitutional. But the lawyers for the private schools, the ones who have looked at this, believe they could not accept the aid in a constitutional manner, that people will be able to bring a court case against them and that they would lose if they did not change the way they do their instruction. They have a moral, religious-based instruction. They believe they would have to change it.

Our amendment clearly makes the way they receive the funds constitutional. We both want to provide help for those people who have been displaced, for those schools that have taken in these displaced students. We both want to have the help go. What we want to do, though, is allow the private schools to function as they have been functioning in the past. If you are a Catholic school, you would be able to function as a Catholic school functions and not be penalized for that because you have taken in these displaced students and are getting some Federal aid.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, first, I want to talk about the general part of the Deficit Reduction Act we have before us, and which the Commerce Committee dealt with a major part of. It has to do with the transition to digital television.

It is a confusing issue for a lot of people, the issue of analog television versus digital television. Digital television will bring far superior quality to our television. We hear about high definition. We hear about digital television today. There is a lot of confusion out there.

In 1996, we set out to transition our television sets--actually by the end of this year--over to the digital age, basically the 21st century in television, in which we would have a much higher quality picture for our television.

Because of a lot of reasons--I think a lot of them are political--we aren't to that point. But what we are doing today in this bill is we have all agreed we are going to have a hard date to actually transition to digital television. What is good about it is everybody can start planning. We will know exactly the time we need to transition from the current television signals the broadcasters are using. Actually, many of them are already broadcasting in both digital and analog, but they will know there will be a hard date where they have to get fully geared to broadcast only in digital.

What does this mean for the consumer out there? A lot of people are afraid: Is my television set going to be turned off when this hard date comes into effect? If we do this right, their television will actually work better than it does today. Even their normal analog television will work better when the hard date comes than it actually works today. With the purchase of a little converter box, they will be able to receive that digital signal. Even if they do not have cable television, with their current analog television--which most televisions are today in the United States--they will be able to receive more television channels free without rabbit ears, without the basic cable that they have today. Because of the way technology works today in the digital age, for each one of those stations which they now have, they will get several stations of digital. There will be a lot more programming which they will actually get free over the air. They will not have to pay for it. This is an advantage for people who aren't on

cable or satellite when we go to this hard date.

There are a lot of reasons for wanting to have that hard date. For those who know anything about the Internet, we always hear about high- speed Internet, or broadband access.

The United States is falling further and further behind the rest of the world when it comes to broadband or high-speed Internet access. We used to be 11th in the world a couple years ago when it comes to broadband. Today, we have slipped to 16th in the world. Eleventh was unacceptable for the United States, but 16th makes us less competitive in this highly technological world we are in in this global marketplace. We have to do everything we can to advance the United States getting up to speed to the Internet.

If you live in a rural area, one of the things this bill will do today, thanks to the good work by Senator Stevens, chairman of the Commerce Committee, one of the good things about having a hard date is that we will be able to free up some spectrum when the broadcasters go off analog. There is valuable spectrum they will go off when they convert to digital. When they go off the spectrum, the spectrum will be auctioned and used for a lot of good uses.

If you live in rural America and you want broadband coming into your home, this spectrum will allow broadband to go throughout the United States with very cheap ways of setting up the infrastructure. Today, it is very expensive to wire, to lay down cables or fiber optics in the ground to rural America. This spectrum is going to make it much more affordable to bring broadband or high-speed Internet access to rural America. That is another one of the huge advantages we have for making a hard date.

First responders need the spectrum that the broadcasters currently occupy as well. It will make the radios work better. It penetrates, for instance, stairwells. On September 11, the first responders' radios did not work as well as they should because they do not have the same kind of spectrum they need to make the radios work better. Getting the broadcasters off this analog spectrum will also make their radios work better.

In the bill, we give $3 billion to convert these analog televisions, these little converter boxes that people will need to get for their televisions to work properly if they do not have cable or if they do not have satellite. Three billion dollars, by many experts I have talked to in looking at the experiences of countries such as Germany that have done similar things, $3 billion is not going to be necessary.

First of all, I don't believe that everyone who has one of these television sets should get a subsidy. We should have that subsidy for low- or low-to-moderate-income families only. For somebody who has a lot of money, why should a middle-income taxpayer have some of their tax dollars going to subsidize somebody who happens to have a bunch of TVs in their house that wants a converter box? The average cost is estimated between $45 and $60 when they are in mass production. I don't think it is unreasonable for somebody of means to buy that on their own. Most people buy a new computer for their home every few years for a lot more money than what this converter box will cost.

It is very reasonable to cut the amount we have from $3 billion down to $1 billion for the subsidy. That is exactly what our amendment does. At this time of runaway Government spending, it is important to look at every place we can to save money.

Our amendment says instead of spending $3 billion on converter boxes to give subsidies to everybody in America, we will only spend $1 billion. Right now, we cannot set the policies in place, but we can set the amount in place. Later on, we can come back with the policies that will reflect the billion. The House of Representatives put in their bill $990 million, right around $1 billion, which is what we reflect. They went through the whole committee process. They did the same thing. It is difficult to get our bill out of committee at the $3 billion level, but it is the responsible thing to do for this Senate, instead of subsidizing those who can afford to buy their own converter boxes, to take $2 billion of that and put it toward offsetting some of the spending in other areas with higher priorities at this time.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska always makes very good and important points.

I emphasize a couple of things. First of all, I ask unanimous consent that this GAO report be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the reason I hold up this report, partly to respond, during the hearings we had on transitioning from the analog spectrum to digital, we had the Germany experience where parts of Germany transitioned, and they had a program to subsidize some people who would need to make their analog sets operate in a digital world. When they had this program in Germany, not nearly as many people participated in it as their government expected to happen.

The GAO report said if there were no means test, it would cost about $1 billion for all of the over-the-air broadcast televisions, one per household for all of those who do not have cable and who do not have satellite television. This is for, on average, about $50 per set-top box.

Now, what I have said, and what I would like to see happen, is that we means test this, that anybody, let's say, who is up to 200 percent of poverty would be the only ones subsidized for a set-top box. If we did that, we could buy every one of those households two set-top boxes for under $1 billion, and we would have enough money left over to administer the program. And that is if 100 percent of the homes participate--100 percent.

Now, I think it is reasonable for us to expect that not 100 percent of the homes are going to participate, but that is even with 100 percent of the low-income homes participating. Even if they do, we will have enough money in the program to buy every household, of 200 percent of poverty or below, two of these set-top boxes to make sure their analog television works when we transition over to the digital age.

So I think it is very reasonable for us to only have $1 billion-- which ``only $1 billion'' around here is a low number, I guess, but it is still a lot of money. I think that is plenty of money for us to transition.

Let us not forget that their televisions are going to be working better. It is not like we are just giving them the same service. They are going to get more services. First of all, their TV sets will work better. The picture will be clearer. When you have over-the-air broadcasts today, and you have rabbit ears, it is not a very clear picture. There is a lot of fuzz, and a lot of times it is not great reception.

In the digital age, your television will be much clearer. And for every one of those television stations you currently have, you will also have other stations--weather channels, news channels--broadcasting over the air for free. You will get a lot more services for less money. So I don't think, for anybody making above 200 percent of the poverty level, it is unreasonable for us to ask them to buy their own set-top boxes. That is why I think there will be plenty of money, even at the billion-dollar level, to be able to handle these things and some of the other things that may be needed down in the gulf coast.

But I look forward to working with the chairman of the committee. I always hate to go against him because he is so accommodating on the committee. But this is something we will look forward to working with the chairman on as we move through this process.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

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

Mr. President, first of all, I want to explain to everybody how important it is what the chairman of the Commerce Committee has done in getting us a hard date. Less than a year ago, in the Commerce Committee, there was no way we were going to have a hard date. People were talking maybe it would be 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 years from now. Some people said we would never have a hard date to convert from the analog TV over to digital. So the committee chairman deserves a great deal of credit for actually getting us to this time, where we are going to have a hard date.

But the reason I think this is a reasonable amendment--and I would just reemphasize to my chairman--is I believe this program should be means tested, that it should not be for everybody in America, millionaires and the like, to be able to get a digital converter box. If they do not have cable in their homes, it is because they choose not to. So they should be able to buy their own converter boxes.

As I talked about this GAO study I have, if we limit it to people who are at 200 percent of poverty and below, we can buy every one of those households two converter boxes for less than $1 billion. If we do not cut the money down from $3 billion to $1 billion, I am afraid we will subsidize every income level home in America, and this money will not go for deficit reduction, that we will actually spend up to the $3 billion.

So that is the purpose for offering this amendment. It is to try to guide the policy in the future, not just the money today.

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

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

Mr. President, before I speak on my amendment, briefly I will comment about Senator Boxer's amendment.

Senator Boxer and I have worked long and hard on afterschool programs, something in which I passionately believe. We worked to try to have this program increased without adding to the deficit, so we had an offset. It was unfortunate the offset was not accepted. I will continue to work with Senator Boxer because it is a program in which I believe. However, I also believe in staying within the budget. So reluctantly, I will have to vote against Senator Boxer's amendment. I say reluctantly. It pains me to do so. To be consistent with my voting record this year, I have voted consistently to stay within the budget. I will reluctantly oppose that amendment.

Getting to my amendment, this is a very simple amendment, and I will not speak long because I know everyone needs to get home. I will keep it as simple as possible.

My amendment will stop the Department of Education from competing against private companies in the United States that are developing software to teach Chinese students to speak the English language.

Normally, one would think that would be a good thing, for the Department of Education to be able to help the Chinese students learn English--English is an international language--that would be a good thing, and we all applaud those efforts. The problem is, there are at least five companies in the United States and probably many more that already have invested their research dollars and created jobs in the United States to produce this very same software. This software exists today and these companies in the United States would like to sell to the Chinese market.

I don't think our Government should be in the business of competing with the private sector. We are all worried about jobs in the United States, and here we have the Department of Education contracting to develop software that they can give to the Chinese so they can teach their kids English.

There are very effective programs out there that have been developed. We have letter after letter after letter from these companies opposing what the Department of Education is doing. They have asked for help.

What this amendment is about is protecting jobs in the United States, protecting those software engineers, those high-value, high-quality jobs in the United States, and to help them be able to sell to other countries--in this case, especially to the Chinese.

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is supporting my amendment and is going to consider this vote in their ratings. If you believe in fiscally conservative principles, we hope you vote for the Ensign amendment.

I don't want to take up more time other than to reemphasize this point: Protect jobs in America. We have all voted on trade issues here. With trade issues, the premise behind those is we open markets in both places. We all know that the Chinese and low-cost labor have brought a lot of products into the United States. Here we have products that have been developed in the United States that could be sold in China. That is how trade is supposed to work. While we are doing free-trade agreements, we should not cut off the very jobs created in America to sell to the people in China.

I urge passage of our amendment and encourage all of my colleagues to protect jobs in America and vote for this valuable amendment.

I yield the floor.

Very briefly, I will clarify a couple of points.

One, that this was a bid process.

To use an example, say, for instance, that the Government, the Department of Education, wanted to give away printers to China, so they sent out several bids. They had an open bidding process and selected one company. Even though it was fairly bid, would we want the Federal Government using taxpayer dollars to buy from one company so they could give that product to the Chinese? I think not because that would be a disadvantage for other companies in the United States who should be able to compete to sell their products in China.

On the second point the Senator from Tennessee raised, he said the Department of Education is willing to share research on some of the innovations that are trying to develop. Looking through the details of what the Department of Education has asked for the software companies to develop, there are at least five software companies that already meet those specifications. They already have developed the features the Department of Education is attempting to develop.

Once again, I urge agreement of the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

I call up amendment No. 2300.

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

amendment no. 2213

Mr. President, I rise along with my colleagues, Senators Landrieu, Byrd, Specter, Lott, Lieberman, Inouye, Levin, and DeMint, in order to introduce the Virgie S. Arden American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.

As a veterinarian, I am well aware of the love that Americans have for their horses. Much of our Nation's early history and culture is associated with these animals. We think of George Washington's horses and the legend of Paul Revere's ride and the Pony Express. More recently, we were reminded of how the Depression Era race between Seabiscuit and War Admiral

raised the spirit of our Nation during desperate times.

While horses in the United States are not raised for food, last year alone more than 65,000 horses were slaughtered in the United States for human consumption abroad. Tens of thousands more were transported to Canada and Mexico for slaughter there. Work horses, race horses, and even pet horses, many of them young and healthy, are slaughtered for human consumption in Europe and Asia, where the meat is sold as a high- end delicacy. Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly support an end to this practice. This sentiment was reflected in the Senate's recent 69-28 vote to prohibit the use of Federal funds to facilitate horse slaughter. The House of Representatives passed identical legislation by a similarly bipartisan vote in June.

Often, owners who sell their horses at auction are unaware that their horses may well be on their way to one of the three remaining slaughterhouses in America where horses are killed for human consumption. These slaughterhouses are foreign-owned and the product is shipped abroad, as are the profits.

While several States are attempting to address the concerns of citizens regarding the tens of thousands of horses going to slaughter each year, the absence of Federal law creates a loophole through which the slaughter can continue. Some States have prohibited the use of double-deck cattle trailers to move horses to slaughter. Texas, which is home to two of the three slaughter plants, has had a law in place since 1949 to effectively prohibit horse slaughter for human consumption. Yet the district attorneys with jurisdiction over the plants have been unable to prosecute these foreign companies, and horses continue to be slaughtered. To end this situation, we must have a Federal law that prohibits sending horses within States, across State lines, or over our domestic borders for the purpose of slaughtering them for human consumption. We can effectively achieve this goal by passing the Virgie S. Arden American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.

Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate the horse slaughter trade--including intrastate shipment--because such trade has a substantial impact on interstate and international commerce. Horses are regularly moved across State lines to be slaughtered in the three remaining horse slaughter plants--one in Illinois--and the other two in Texas. Others are exported across the U.S. border to Canada and Mexico for slaughter there. Even the meat of slaughtered horses is eventually moved across State lines or our domestic borders for sale outside of the United States. Our bill will end this practice.

I know that some people have expressed concerns about what will happen to horses if their slaughter is ended. Many of these horses will be sold to a new owner, kept longer by their original owner, or euthanized by a licensed veterinarian. Others will be cared for by the horse rescue community, and efforts are now underway to standardize practices in this ever-growing sector. Guidelines for these rescue organizations have been developed by the animal protection community and embraced by sanctuaries across the country.

Some people have questioned whether this law will result in the abuse and neglect of unwanted horses. Thankfully, statistics do not support this claim at all. Recently released figures show that the number of abuse cases dropped significantly in Illinois from 2002 to 2004, the period in which the State's only horse slaughtering facility was closed due to fire. Also, since California passed a law banning the slaughter of horses for human consumption, there has been no discernible increase in cruelty and neglect cases in the state.

Furthermore, it is currently illegal to ``turn out,'' neglect, or starve a horse, so this bill will not result in an increased number of orphaned horses in the United States. If a person attempts to turn his or her horses out, under current law, animal control agents will be able to enforce humane laws. As I stated before, this bill seeks only to end the slaughter of horses for human consumption. If a person wishes to put an animal down, it costs about $225 to have the horse euthanized by a licensed veterinarian and disposed of--a fraction of what it costs to keep a horse as a companion or a work animal. That cost is not too big a burden to bear when no other options are available.

The time for a strong federal law ending this slaughter is now. This bill does not target other forms of slaughter, rendering, or euthanasia, rather it focuses solely on the slaughter of American horses for human consumption. The House version of this bill, H.R. 5031, currently has more than 120 cosponsors. Please join Senator Landrieu and me in cosponsoring the Virgie S. Arden American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise along with my colleagues, Senators Landrieu, Byrd, Specter, Lott, Lieberman, Inouye, Levin, and DeMint, in order to introduce the Virgie S. Arden American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.

As a veterinarian, I am well aware of the love that Americans have for their horses. Much of our Nation's early history and culture is associated with these animals. We think of George Washington's horses and the legend of Paul Revere's ride and the Pony Express. More recently, we were reminded of how the Depression Era race between Seabiscuit and War Admiral

raised the spirit of our Nation during desperate times.

While horses in the United States are not raised for food, last year alone more than 65,000 horses were slaughtered in the United States for human consumption abroad. Tens of thousands more were transported to Canada and Mexico for slaughter there. Work horses, race horses, and even pet horses, many of them young and healthy, are slaughtered for human consumption in Europe and Asia, where the meat is sold as a high- end delicacy. Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly support an end to this practice. This sentiment was reflected in the Senate's recent 69-28 vote to prohibit the use of Federal funds to facilitate horse slaughter. The House of Representatives passed identical legislation by a similarly bipartisan vote in June.

Often, owners who sell their horses at auction are unaware that their horses may well be on their way to one of the three remaining slaughterhouses in America where horses are killed for human consumption. These slaughterhouses are foreign-owned and the product is shipped abroad, as are the profits.

While several States are attempting to address the concerns of citizens regarding the tens of thousands of horses going to slaughter each year, the absence of Federal law creates a loophole through which the slaughter can continue. Some States have prohibited the use of double-deck cattle trailers to move horses to slaughter. Texas, which is home to two of the three slaughter plants, has had a law in place since 1949 to effectively prohibit horse slaughter for human consumption. Yet the district attorneys with jurisdiction over the plants have been unable to prosecute these foreign companies, and horses continue to be slaughtered. To end this situation, we must have a Federal law that prohibits sending horses within States, across State lines, or over our domestic borders for the purpose of slaughtering them for human consumption. We can effectively achieve this goal by passing the Virgie S. Arden American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.

Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate the horse slaughter trade--including intrastate shipment--because such trade has a substantial impact on interstate and international commerce. Horses are regularly moved across State lines to be slaughtered in the three remaining horse slaughter plants--one in Illinois--and the other two in Texas. Others are exported across the U.S. border to Canada and Mexico for slaughter there. Even the meat of slaughtered horses is eventually moved across State lines or our domestic borders for sale outside of the United States. Our bill will end this practice.

I know that some people have expressed concerns about what will happen to horses if their slaughter is ended. Many of these horses will be sold to a new owner, kept longer by their original owner, or euthanized by a licensed veterinarian. Others will be cared for by the horse rescue community, and efforts are now underway to standardize practices in this ever-growing sector. Guidelines for these rescue organizations have been developed by the animal protection community and embraced by sanctuaries across the country.

Some people have questioned whether this law will result in the abuse and neglect of unwanted horses. Thankfully, statistics do not support this claim at all. Recently released figures show that the number of abuse cases dropped significantly in Illinois from 2002 to 2004, the period in which the State's only horse slaughtering facility was closed due to fire. Also, since California passed a law banning the slaughter of horses for human consumption, there has been no discernible increase in cruelty and neglect cases in the state.

Furthermore, it is currently illegal to ``turn out,'' neglect, or starve a horse, so this bill will not result in an increased number of orphaned horses in the United States. If a person attempts to turn his or her horses out, under current law, animal control agents will be able to enforce humane laws. As I stated before, this bill seeks only to end the slaughter of horses for human consumption. If a person wishes to put an animal down, it costs about $225 to have the horse euthanized by a licensed veterinarian and disposed of--a fraction of what it costs to keep a horse as a companion or a work animal. That cost is not too big a burden to bear when no other options are available.

The time for a strong federal law ending this slaughter is now. This bill does not target other forms of slaughter, rendering, or euthanasia, rather it focuses solely on the slaughter of American horses for human consumption. The House version of this bill, H.R. 5031, currently has more than 120 cosponsors. Please join Senator Landrieu and me in cosponsoring the Virgie S. Arden American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.