Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Paul. I came down to the floor to thank him for bringing up a number of issues of concern and being willing to stand here and tell America what those concerns are. I also respect his demanding the opportunity for debate and for amendments of such an important bill. It is extraordinary, particularly after the majority leader had promised in February that the PATRIOT Act renewal would get a week of debate with the chance to offer amendments. After a couple of weeks of doing absolutely nothing on the Senate floor, Senator Paul and others were denied the opportunity to offer amendments that would have brought up legitimate debates about the PATRIOT Act. There are a number of things a lot of us would have liked to have learned more about, heard some of the arguments we have heard from Senator Paul today. Unfortunately, that has been limited to a relatively small amount of time. It is, frankly, stunning to me that the majority is actually willing to let the PATRIOT Act expire rather than give Senator Paul a few amendments. That is an extraordinary situation for the Senate that considers itself the world's greatest deliberative body when one of the most important pieces of legislation we could consider is jammed up against a break with no opportunity for amendment. I do not want to interrupt Senator Paul's flow because I think a lot of the things he is talking about are important that we consider. Unfortunately, they will not be considered. It does not sound as if his debates will be allowed and for the amendments to be considered. It sounds as if what they are going to try to do is blame him for us voting late or early. But I commend Senator Paul for standing for good judgment and common sense on a matter of this importance. Whether we agree or disagree with all the amendments is not the point. It is too important to be handled this way. I will allow Senator Paul to continue, and I yield the floor. I thank him for what he is doing.

Mr. DeMINT. Yes, I will.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Kentucky knows the answer to that question. Some of us have reserved time between 2:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. for some give-and-take and some debate on the floor about the budget votes that will be this afternoon. But that time was canceled by the majority. We have an impending debt that everyone in the world, except for those inside this body, seem to understand. We are in trouble as a country. The majority has not produced a budget in over 700 days, I think it is. At the same time, we are trying to negotiate how we will move forward on this huge important point of raising the debt ceiling which none of us want to do. We are avoiding the subject of balancing the budget. The majority leader has said these kinds of issues are off the table. It is very frustrating, whether it is the debt ceiling, whether it is the PATRIOT Act and our homeland security, that we are spending weeks doing nothing, bringing up, in some cases, controversial judges who should not have been nominated in the first place, spending day after day of floor time and not bringing up important issues. We are all concerned. I know America is concerned. Again, I thank Senator Paul very much for the willingness to bring out the point that we have something here that is very important to our security, to the privacy of every American. It needs to be vetted, debated, and amendments need to be offered. Yet this has been denied after a promise. I certainly encourage the Senator to continue. I thank him for his courage.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, as the Senator from Kentucky knows, he has 11 amendments he wishes to have considered. He was willing to compress the time so we could do that expeditiously. They would not agree to that. Senator Paul is willing to compromise to three amendments. It sounds as though they do not want him to offer those amendments because, frankly, they do not want to take a vote on some of them that may expose what they believe. It is a frustrating situation for Senator Paul. As our majority friends over here like to do, they cause the problem and try to blame it on us. As the Senator said, within a few hours, this could be decided and over. We could pass the PATRIOT Act. Folks could vote for or against what they want. We could send it to the House, and it could be done. It does appear the majority is willing to let this important legislation lapse just to stop the Senator from Kentucky from offering a few amendments. That is an extraordinary situation. Again, I thank the Senator for yielding. I appreciate him getting this debate out on the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I thank Senator Sessions for leading these few minutes of debate we were allowed. It is an extraordinary situation where we are as a nation, that we are here with only a few minutes of debate about what has become the most serious situation our country has ever faced, and that is our debt. When President Obama was a Senator in 2006, he said ``increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally.'' Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said: ``Our biggest national security threat is our debt.'' We know the rating agencies that look at our financial condition, such as Standard & Poor's, have downgraded us. We know major capital funds have divested of Treasury notes, concerned about our political will to deal with our debt. Yet we do not have a budget. We do not have any plan to deal with the debt. Everything Republicans put forward in the House and the Senate the Democrats sit on the sidelines and criticize and misrepresent. Yet they offer no solutions themselves. It is hard to deal with $14 trillion in debt and what it really means. Here is one chart that is somewhat helpful. We hear in the news that Greece and Ireland and Portugal are bankrupt. They are close to defaulting. They are having to be bailed out by the International Monetary Fund. These charts just show the percent of debt relative to their total economy, their GDP. We see Greece is already at 136 percent; Ireland is at 75 percent; Portugal, 82 percent. If we add up all the liabilities that we have as a nation, we are already at 95 percent, which means we have more debt relative to our total economy than Portugal and Ireland already, and very soon we are on a track to even outpace Greece. Yet we do not even have a budget, no plan of what to spend. When Republicans talk about the need to cut spending all we get is criticism. The President has actually submitted a budget that nearly doubles our debt over the next 10 years. We will get a chance to vote on it. Not even the Democrats are going to vote for that budget. But they have not even presented one on their own. We will also get a chance to vote on the House budget. The Democrats think if we do, that is going to hurt us. But I think we will see most Republicans vote for it because they know we have to deal with Medicare. The President's budget cuts what Medicare pays doctors another 35 percent. Already about 50 percent of the doctors in this country will not see new Medicare patients. The President cut $\1/2\ trillion from Medicare to help pay for ObamaCare and somehow he can look us in the eye and say this strengthened Medicare. The fact is, the Democrats have Medicare on a course of bankruptcy that is going to happen much sooner than is projected because people will not be able to find a doctor if the President's budget is implemented anywhere close to where it is going to be implemented. Republicans are trying to save Medicare and make sure there are options for seniors in the future that will be good options for them; that they will have a way to pay for health care in the future. Medicare will not be there. Anyone who looks at seniors today and tells seniors that traditional Medicare is going to be there 5 or 10 years from now is not telling the truth because it is not. Doctors will not see Medicare patients at the rate we are going to pay. All we are doing today is having what we call message votes, show votes. They are set up to fail. The majority leader does not intend to pass any budget--not the President's budget, not a Republican budget, and they will not even offer one on their own. We are going to leave here today with this situation right here: with America approaching a debt level which we have seen take down other countries and continue to ignore the obvious. As has already been referenced by Senator Ayotte, the majority leader actually said: There is no need to have a Democratic budget . . . it would be foolish of us to do a budget at this stage. It would be foolish because it would reveal what they really intend to do, which is to keep spending and keep borrowing, keep investing, keep growing government programs, and not make those hard decisions that have to be made to pull our country away from the edge of a cliff, which is where we are. Everyone outside Washington seems to understand that we have an urgent situation right now. Yet here we are today with just these show votes on a budget with no intent of dealing with this at all. What we need to be doing is--recognizing the President has said our debt is our biggest problem, and it is a failure of leadership to ask for an increase in the debt ceiling--we need to recognize we cannot raise this debt ceiling. We cannot increase our debt unless we make the hard decisions that need to be made for the future. The only decision that will change this place is if we pass a balanced budget requirement for the Congress that the States have to ratify. If we passed that this year before we voted on the debt ceiling, then the people of this country in all 50 States would have a chance to ratify that. It would take 1 year or 2, 3 years to be ratified; then there is another 5 years' implementation built into the bill. So we are talking 6 or 8 years to get to a balanced budget. If we cannot make that commitment as a Congress, we are in effect committing to bankrupt our country because all of us know we cannot keep spending more than we are bringing in when they are already telling us we are at a debt level that is going to bankrupt our country. We cannot even pay the interest if interest rates go up at all. We have to be responsible, and what we are doing today is completely irresponsible. I cannot raise the rhetorical level high enough to talk about the absurdity of where we are. We put our country in danger, our future at risk, and yet we are having show votes on budgets and no budget at all from the Democratic majority. I appreciate the Senator from Alabama at least taking this time that we have to point out the real issues and the urgency of the matter in the fact that we need to move from show to real substance. We cannot roll up our sleeves and work together if the other side does not agree that we have a problem. We do have a problem, and the only way to change that is for us to agree as a Congress to balance our budget within a reasonable window and to put that structure on us so we keep that budget balanced in the future. I thank Senator Sessions and yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Thank you, Madam President. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Tennessee. I appreciate him bringing this up. It is important for us here in the Senate as well as everyone around the country to understand what this administration is doing to hurt jobs in America. This has been a good week for America. We have worked together building on a lot of the common principles of our country of a strong defense and a robust intelligence system to track down an enemy of freedom and to render justice as we had promised. This was done over two administrations and many Congressmen and Senators. So this is a good day for America. I think we need to take this time to maybe think about how we can apply the principles that work in America to our challenges back home with our economy and our jobs and our culture, because it is a bigger issue we are dealing with in the context of this decision by the National Labor Relations Board. We need to use the principles that work, but it appears this administration and my colleagues on the other side are afraid to let these principles work. They seem to be afraid of freedom itself. We see in their record over the last 2 years being afraid for Americans to make their own decisions about their children's education and about their health care. They are afraid to death of letting senior citizens manage their own retirement funds and health care plans. They are certainly afraid to let States manage their own energy resources or decide what roads and bridges to build and where to build them. They clearly don't want businesses to make their own decisions about hiring and firing. They won't let even community banks make their own decisions about who to lend money to, even though these small banks have nothing to do with the financial collapse. Clearly, from this decision, this administration and the Democratic Party is afraid to give employees--workers--the freedom not to join a union. It is amazing what this National Labor Relations Board, which has been stacked with union folks by the administration, is doing to jobs in our States and all across the country. Twenty-two States have right- to-work laws. In the last few months, my State, along with several others, has passed a constitutional amendment that would protect the freedom of workers to have a secret ballot when union bosses are trying to organize their workplace. A secret ballot is so fundamental to American principles and the principles of freedom, but the AFL-CIO is suing our State and others to stop us from protecting that freedom of workers. In the last few weeks, a truly extraordinary thing has happened, as this National Labor Relations Board has actually filed suit against Boeing, which has located a new facility in South Carolina, claiming it was retribution for a strike in Washington. People need to understand that Boeing has added 2,000 jobs in Washington since they decided to build this new production line in South Carolina. But this administration--and I am afraid the majority here in the Senate--is so afraid companies will have the freedom to locate new facilities, new businesses, in States where their workers are not required to join a union. Let's put this in a different context. A few weeks ago, a delegation from California went to Texas to try to figure out why hundreds of businesses are moving from California, taking tax revenue and jobs with them to Texas and other States. They didn't need to make the trip. It was pretty obvious that the business environment that has been created in California by the unions and the politicians has made it very difficult for world-class companies to be competitive. What takes a few weeks in Texas could take 2 years as far as getting a permit to open a new business. This is a small look at what is happening to our country, because we need to look at why so many companies are moving from our country to other countries to do business. It is because of decisions such as this and decisions by this administration over the last couple of years that have made America a place that is very difficult to do business in. I appreciate what the Senator from Tennessee is doing, because this is not just about one employer or one State. Twenty-two States are right-to-work States. Twenty-two States have decided they are going to provide the freedom to their workers not to have to join a union. So much of this is political and retribution, not just against Boeing for putting a site in a right-to-work State, but it is political retribution. The administration, I believe, is acting like thugs that one might see in a Third World country, trying to bully and intimidate employers who are trying to get out from under this cloud of union control. It is a political deal of this administration trying to expand unionization and union benefits because the unions give the contributions to the Democratic Party and get out the vote for the Democrats. This is crazy. In an environment where this administration and all of us here are saying we are trying to create jobs, there is no question what they are doing in South Carolina and around this country by trying to force unionization is hurting our business climate in America, it is hurting employment, it is diminishing our future as a country, and it is all for political purposes. It is amazing to see that the unions have such a control over this administration, even in passing the stimulus bill. With it went requirements that a lot of the contractors who use this money had to follow union rules or be unionized. We saw in the health plan that the unions were the big proponent of it, but as soon as it passed, they are the ones asking for waivers so they don't have to live by it. What this administration is doing to one company is a threat to every company, every employer, and every worker in this country. It goes back to their fear of freedom. The command-and-control paranoia we see in this administration is antithetical to everything we understand about freedom in our country--of individual responsibility and individual freedom--and free markets and free enterprise. They are attacking it on every front. This decision by the National Labor Relations Board cannot stand. We must challenge it here in the Congress; employers need to challenge it; states are already challenging it, because it is clearly outside of the authority of this Federal Government to be threatening and bullying and trying to intimidate companies such as Boeing, which should have the freedom to locate their plants anywhere they want. This is intimidation. Many of Boeing's contracts are military contracts, and we know that is being held over their head. This is not the way we should do business in America. This is not the way our government should operate. We need to get back to those first principles that made us great. Clearly, what this administration is doing in this case and many others is way outside the realm of what we should expect of a good and decent government, and we are not getting it here. With that, Madam President, I see the other Senator from South Carolina is here, and I will yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XXII, Paragraph 2, for the purpose of proposing and considering DeMint Amendment No. 165 to S. 493, including germaneness requirements.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I associate myself with my colleague from Utah. I appreciate the clarity of his remarks. I wish to add to them. I am glad we have some folks here today listening in. There is probably no other place in the country we can hear so much nonsense as we will hear on the Senate floor today. Unfortunately, we just heard that from the colleague before my colleague from Utah. The House just passed another resolution to fund the government, fund the military for the rest of the year, pretty much at a figure we have all agreed on. It includes funding for 1 week to keep other aspects of the government open, and it makes some very modest cuts to our budget. Most of these have been agreed to in advance. But there seems to be one sticking point. This bill would prohibit using taxpayer money to fund abortions in DC. My colleague who spoke a minute ago said this is an invasion of reproductive rights. I am here to tell colleagues that no one has a reproductive right to use somebody else's money for an abortion. That is all this is about. Not only taxpayers' money, but we are borrowing money to do something at a time when the country is nearly broke that Americans disagree on, and it violates the conscience of many Americans. But my colleagues on the other side have decided to make this the crucial issue. Either Republicans agree to use taxpayer money for abortions or they are going to shut down the government. And they say we are emphasizing social issues. This is not just a social issue. It is an American issue. Even people who support abortion support the idea that taxpayers should not be forced to pay for it. It is a small request. The cuts are small. But it is clear, as the Senator from Utah just said, this shutdown has been planned by the President and the Democratic majority for a long time, believing they can win the PR battle, thinking that Americans are too stupid to figure it out. I am confident, as we go into this, that Americans are much smarter than my Democratic colleagues. I think they are going to figure out how irresponsible the President has been, how much lack of leadership there has been in the Senate, trying to blame Speaker Boehner in the House who controls one-half of one branch of government for a shutdown, when last year, when the President controlled the whole government, we didn't pass a budget. We didn't fund any aspect of government. This landed in the lap of a new Congress which still includes a Democratic majority here in the Senate. There has not been one bill from the Senate that the Democrats agree on. The President has not sent down one funding request we could vote for. We don't have a bill proposed by Senator Harry Reid today that we can vote for to keep the government open. Yet he is saying what the Republicans on the House side are sending over is not good enough. The House just passed another bill. Fifteen Democrats voted for it. If we had 15 Democrats in the Senate who were reasonable, we wouldn't have to deal with this ridiculous, irresponsible government shutdown. I don't know what else Republicans in the House could do. They sent over, over 40 days ago, a bill that would have funded the government through the rest of the year with very nominal cuts. It was set up to fail in the Senate. We have yet to have hardly any debate on the issue. During all this time we have spent less than 3 hours of debate on the most important issue in the country. We spent the last couple of weeks on a small business bill. I bet no American could tell us what we are even talking about. Before that we spent a couple of weeks on a patent bill--anything we could do to avoid the responsibility of debating the most pressing issue in this country. I also have to take issue with what the Democrats are trying to do with the tea party. I remind them that many tea party members are Democrats. They are Independents. They are Republicans. Many of them have never been involved with politics before. Many are Hispanic and African American. They are all Americans. But they are concerned about our country. They seem to be able to do something we can't do here. They add and subtract. They understand we can't keep spending more than we are bringing in and expect the country to survive. We even brought up a resolution--the Senator from Utah did--to have a sense of the Senate that we should balance our budget. Just about every Democrat voted against that. That means there is an intent to bankrupt our country. Because there is no way around it; if we keep spending more than we bring in, we will bankrupt the country. That is the course this President has put us on. That is the course Senator Reid and the Democratic majority want to keep us on. When we try to do even modest, nominal reductions in spending to change the trend line, they are coached, as Senator Schumer has said, to call it extreme and to blame it on the tea party. Americans are smarter than that. I think my colleagues are getting ready to figure that out. We come down to the bottom line the Senator from Utah mentioned. Why are they doing this? They look back to 1997, back in the 1990s, and they think they can win the PR battle. Even more importantly, the President needs a distraction. The focus on the President now is revealing a lack of leadership in domestic policy and foreign policy. He has led us into a mess in Libya. He has led us into a domestic mess and has us on a course to bankrupt the country. He is trying to take over health care. And all those unions and other people who were advocating for it are now asking for waivers. There have been over 1,000 waivers, people who want to get out of this health care bill. The financial reregulation Dodd-Frank bill is threatening to hurt the economy even more. The President needs a distraction. This is a choreographed distraction to close the government down, to draw attention, to try to shift the blame from a President who has been AWOL from leadership and has very little political courage. That is what we need right now across America. That is what Americans are asking us to do, to keep fighting, be bold. This is not a matter of partisan politics as much as it is a matter of national survival. We have to make some hard decisions. We can't keep spending more than we are bringing in. We have to do what families do, tighten our belts, balance the checkbook. These are not radical ideas. All we have to respond to is what the House has passed today. Senate Democrats who control this place have not offered any solution. The President has not offered a solution. I suspect we will not even be allowed to vote on the one option we have, what the House sends over here. Yet they think Americans are so stupid that they can come to the floor and blame Republicans who have no control over the situation except to send us what they think is best from the House. That is what they are doing. They need to be applauded. Speaker Boehner has done everything he can to try to work with all parties here to responsibly keep the government going and at the same time to recognize we cannot keep this reckless spending the President has been doing the last couple of years. This is an urgent and serious matter that I am afraid is being played as a PR game by the other side. The misrepresentations I heard just before about the budget being proposed on the House side are very difficult to swallow. The truth is very rare in this body. I hope all Americans will take the time to look at what is really going on because this is all a blame game, and the Democrats are counting on Americans not to pay attention, to take their cues from the national media. We are going to do everything we can to keep the government open, to responsibly respond to what the voters told us last November, and not to play the blame game with the other side. But this is being played as a game instead of a matter of serious national survival, a serious national issue. But the bill we will hopefully have a chance at least to debate that the House just passed will take our No. 1 responsibility, to defend our country, fund our troops, and make sure that is done for the balance of the year. We can argue about the rest next week, but let's fund our troops this week and do what we were sent here to do. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, in accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend Rule XIV, paragraphs 3 and 4 for the purpose of moving to proceed to H.R. 1363, Department of Defense and Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011.

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I have been sitting in my office listening to news reports about the Congress and the President arguing about the budget and the debate about what we are going to cut. It is interesting to think back over the last couple of years, because it is hard to put these things together. After 2 years of the largest expansion of government, the biggest increase in debt in our history, now suddenly we are debating what needs to be cut. I think over the last couple of years as the President proposed a massive spending plan--which we called a stimulus--and Republicans were saying no, that is not the way to improve the economy. But the President insisted it would keep unemployment below 8 percent and get our economy going again. Republicans said no. We were accused of being the party of no. As it turns out, we were right. Then it wasn't too long until the President insisted we needed essentially a national takeover of our health care system, and this, he promised, would lower the cost of health insurance. Republicans said no, what we need is more freedom for patients and physicians to work together, and more transparency, more competitiveness in the market. The President said no, that his way of nationalizing health care was better. Republicans were again called the party of no for saying that was not the way to go. But as it turns out, we were right. Insurance premiums are headed straight up. Even the New York Times today talked about skyrocketing insurance premiums and less health care. Well, it wasn't long after that until the President and our Democratic majority wanted more national control of our whole banking system, with the financial reform that was supposed to loosen credit and help our economy get going again. But I have talked to too many bankers back home to believe that worked. Of course, Republicans said no, that wasn't the direction we needed to go. We were called the party of no. But as it turns out, we were right. You might say we were the party of no, but you spell it K-N-O-W. We knew this centralization of power, of government control, was not going to stimulate our economy, that it was not going to improve our health care system, and it wasn't going to improve our banking system. It was the time to say no. Last November, the American people decided it was time to say no. They began to put a stop to what has been going on around here, and we know what happened in the House and the elections over here. The American people were pretty clear. They instinctively knew we couldn't continue to spend more than we were bringing in. They knew when you are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar you spend that sooner or later the country is going to be bankrupt. But it is amazing that since that election, even with the changes here, our colleagues on the other side the other day killed a proposal to balance the budget--a resolution that called for the balancing of the budget. I think most Americans know if you are not willing to balance your checkbook or balance your budget, sooner or later you are going to be bankrupt. I think that is what a lot of Americans are afraid of right now. I think we have a different situation going on with our colleagues on the other side. From Wisconsin to here in Washington, as we look at the budget problems and the debate on how to cut spending at the Federal level, we have a party of no show. They are not showing up for the debate in Wisconsin. The Democrats headed across the State line. And in the budget debate, the President, who had pledged to do something about our spending and our deficits and go through the budget line by line, didn't even produce a budget. And regarding the budget he proposed this year--and promised that it would keep us living within our means--even the most liberal commentator said this expands our debt nationally probably more than $10 trillion over the next 10 years. We are over $14 trillion in debt, we hit our debt ceiling within the next month or 2, and we are debating how much to cut. I want to talk a little bit about this debate because it shows that even with the astounding election we had in November, very quickly Congress is back to business as usual. The deficit we are looking at this year in America--this is just 1 year--is over $1.5 trillion. That is going to be on top of the $14 trillion that we are already experiencing. The projections are that we will increase our debt over the next 10 years another $1 trillion every year. Last month, in February--which was a short month--over $220 billion of debt was incurred in that 1 month. That is a larger deficit than we have experienced in most years our country has been around. It is crazy, $220 billion in 1 month. We are facing $1.5 trillion this year. It is amazing how this place can lower our expectations. Do you know what the debate is about right now? The Republican House has proposed $61 billion in cuts against the $1.5 trillion. The Democrats have told us this is completely unacceptable; these are Draconian cuts. The President proposed around $6 billion. I think the Democratic leader is coming out with one that is about $4.5 billion, which some say is too much of a cut. As we are looking at doubling this $14 trillion deficit over the next 10 years or close to doubling it, and the hard decisions we have to make about how to deal with Social Security and Medicare, the big decisions about how we economize even in areas like our defense, how we possibly deal with this debt, we have a Congress now that instead of addressing the issue of $1.5 trillion is debating between $61 billion and $6 billion. These are fractional. You cannot even see the line here, of what is being proposed by our Democratic colleagues. I am afraid that President Obama and Democrats, like we see in Wisconsin, are not showing up for this debate. Instead of proposing realistic ways to tighten our belts at the Federal level and look at how we can balance our checkbook, as so many Americans have to do every month in their homes, the President has decided to sit on the sidelines and criticize things that have to be trimmed or cut or changed. It is amazing. The Democratic leader has called Republicans ``mean spirited'' because they are proposing to cut funding for a cowboy poetry festival. I love poetry and cowboys as much as anyone else, but we are looking at bankrupting our Nation, destroying the future that was given to us by our predecessors, and we cannot even get close to a realistic debate on how we can stop this rampage toward bankruptcy in America. There is not enough there. Even what the House Republicans have done is not enough. I realize that politics is sometimes the art of the possible, but I am hoping it can become the promotion of the principles that make this country great and can secure our future. We all have to decide today how we are going to vote. Obviously, this $6 billion is not a serious proposal by our Democratic colleagues. But I think those of us who realize we are up against a mountain of debt-- how do we deal with even the highest proposal now that is coming through Congress? My point is this: There are some hard decisions that have to be made in Washington, some very hard decisions. There is a new reality that we have to face as a Congress. We have to tell the truth. Americans just want the truth. They want fact-based budgeting. They want us to do what we need to do to save our country. Obviously, no one wants anything that is coming to them to be cut, but I have talked to too many Americans who have said: Keep fighting. Do what has to be done to leave this country as good as we found it. I think that is a reasonable request for us to consider. What we are doing is not even within the realm of reality of what has to be done to leave America better than we found it. This is not about partisan politics anymore, this is about the survival of America. This is about avoiding bankruptcy not just for our country, but this country has been the bastion of freedom and the model for democracy and freedom for centuries. The other countries even today are looking to us and wanting to be free as violence erupts around the world. They want to overthrow authoritarian regimes so their people can live in freedom. But at the time other countries strive to be like America, America seems to be determined, at least at the political level, to push our way toward being a Third World country that is so in debt and so dependent that we can no longer determine our destiny. Today America is literally on its knees to China and other countries for the credit we need to run our economy. We are also on our knees to the Middle East, which is very unstable right now, for the energy we need to run our country, to even take our food to market, the essentials at home. But instead of addressing the real issues, knowing this budget is in front of us, over the last couple of weeks, when we knew we just had this 2-week funding bill to get us through, instead of debating what we are really up against we have been dealing with a patent bill. I think it is good to improve our patent system, but the party that is leading the Senate has been a no-show on the issue that is really threatening our country. And unless they show up, it is very difficult for Republicans--who are not in the White House; they are not controlling the Senate--to actually take the steps that are needed to move our country back in the right direction. My invitation today is to my Democratic colleagues, that after listening to them call us the party of no, I will say that we were right, and our hope is they will listen to what we are saying and show up for the debate on our budget and do what we need to do to change the role of the Federal Government, to devolve functions back to the States and back to individuals so this country can continue to survive and thrive and succeed in the future. This is within our grasp. It is something we can do. This is not a doomsday scenario because many of the solutions are not in what the Federal Government can do but what the Federal Government can let go of. As we look at the problems we have, it is not a matter that freedom has failed. The problem is we have failed to let freedom work. We have tried to take control of education, of health care, of transportation, of energy, of retirement programs. The fact is, we have not done it well and now we are spending so much that our country is threatened with bankruptcy. There are good solutions if we are willing to look at letting things go. As we consider this massive debt hill we have to climb, we need to realize we can and we must balance the budget. That is probably what I would consider the No. 1 goal of the Republicans right now is to produce a budget that shows within 5 years that we can balance the budget and leave America better off than before we started. I believe with real freedom solutions we can do that. We need to go back to where we started. This political system, this Washington establishment has brought America to the brink of bankruptcy. The debt in 1 year--even 1 month--and we are talking about not even addressing for maybe a few days and we cannot even agree on this $61 billion. I hope the American people who were so instrumental in changing things in November will rise up and let Washington know that it is time to get serious about reforming the way we spend money in Washington. We have had reports in the last week that show over $100 billion of outright waste that we could cut immediately if we would just address it. But when one party will not show up for the debate it is very difficult to do. Let's make this more than partisan politics. Let's cooperate. Let's look at the real problem and let's address it. I believe we can succeed. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I can call up amendment No. 113, as modified.

Mr. DeMINT. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, Senator Johanns be allowed to speak.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I think any American who heard the explanation of what ObamaCare does for Americans will realize that the complexity of the health care system, the importance of the patient- physician relationship cannot be managed from the Federal level. I had difficulty really determining exactly what was being said there. I do want to talk about health care, but before I do, I need to make a couple of comments about the FAA perimeter rule that is part of the discussion to which the health care amendment will be attached. The perimeter rule is an antiquated policy adopted in the 1960s that prohibits aircraft flying in and out of Reagan National originating or departing anywhere beyond an arbitrary 1,250-mile limit. Congress imposed this limitation five decades ago in an attempt to help the Dulles Airport in Virginia when it was first being opened. The rationale was that the best way to ensure growth at Dulles was to limit the growth at National Airport, and so, by federal fiat, a short-haul airport was created at National and a long-haul airport created at Dulles. At the time, Congress assumed government could create an efficient aviation system and the government would best decide prices, routes, and schedules. The perimeter rule is outdated today. Americans out West want to fly directly into downtown DC. Travelers from downtown DC do not want to go to Dulles to fly to the west coast. The government needs to do away with the perimeter rule, just as it did with the regulation of the aviation system long ago. Dulles is now an international airport and can easily compete with National or any other airport in the country. The Federal transportation policy should be based on competition and consumer need, but the existing perimeter rule is denying consumers choice in air travel and frustrating market forces that could accommodate these consumers. Consumer choices in the markets should govern the schedule and flights out of Reagan National, not the Federal Government. This week, President Obama gave a speech about health care--or actually I guess it was last week now. The speech was at a fancy hotel here in Washington. He told jokes to make everyone laugh and sad stories to endear his audience further to his cause. The President said, as he has many times before, his law will lower the cost of health care. President Obama knows how to give a good speech. He also knows how to tell it like it isn't. While President Obama was busy selling his policies on the stump, others were busy analyzing the real effects of his health care law. It is not limiting cost. We have heard some of the figures given by the Democrats here from the Congressional Budget Office. But we have to expose that they are playing with numbers. If you tell the Congressional Budget Office to take $500 billion from Medicare, which is already bankrupt and cannot pay doctors to see patients, you take $500 billion and call that ``savings'' that are created by ObamaCare, that is part of where they get their money. The other part is to raise taxes on a lot of health care products and services and call that new revenue creating by ObamaCare. Any thinking American knows you cannot create a trillion-dollar new health care entitlement and it actually saves us money. When the Congressional Budget Office looks at our whole health care spending at the Federal level, it tells us, without all of those funny assumptions, that the Federal spending on health care is going to double over the next 10 years. That is not saving us money. This is the same office that found, without these funny assumptions, that ObamaCare would cause premiums to rise an average of $2,100 per year for families in the individual market. That is telling it like it is. It was not that long ago that some of the country's largest insurance carriers sent a letter to their enrollees warning them that ObamaCare was going to drive up the cost of premiums. They told it like it is. The Obama administration did not want this information to get out. So the Department of Health and Human Services sent a letter back to the insurance carriers saying their claims were not true, and HHS would have zero tolerance for this type of misinformation. They want to keep on telling it like it isn't. Richard Foster, the Chief Actuary for Medicare, an independent economic expert, recently testified before the House Budget Committee. He was asked if it was true or false that Obama's health care bill would lower cost. A true-or-false question. He said: I would say false more than true. He told it like it is. False more than true is a very polite way of saying no, it will not lower health care costs. That claim is false. President Obama also promised that if you would like to keep your health care plan, you can keep it. Richard Foster was also asked if those who liked their health care plans would be able to keep their coverage. He said: Not true in all cases. It certainly is not true if you live in one of the 34 States where health insurance insurers stop selling child-only policies. It is not true if you live in Colorado and have Aetna Insurance. Politico reported Monday evening that the health insurance carrier was pulling out of the individual markets. Many Americans will lose their health plans with ObamaCare. But you can keep your health care plan if your union or company got one of the 733 ObamaCare waivers so far. The waivers cover almost 2.2 million people. You can get your health care or you can keep it if you are a member of the six chapters of the Service Employees International Union which got waivers, and whose political action committee spent more than $27 million helping Barack Obama get elected, or if you are one of the 8,000 members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union that got waivers. Their PAC has spent millions helping Barack Obama and Democrats get elected. These are the unions that supported cramming ObamaCare down the throats of the rest of America. Even though labor unions represent less than 7 percent of the private workforce, they have received 40 percent of the waivers. They do not want the health care they want other Americans to have to accept. Most Americans do not play these political games. They do not have lobbyists and PACs. But I think they should all get a waiver too. I think we should name this repeal bill that we will vote on today the Great American Waiver. Every Republican in the Senate is committed to repealing this bill. Every American gets a waiver when we repeal this bill. Soon, we will have a vote to repeal ObamaCare here in the Senate. I strongly urge my colleagues to follow the House in repealing it and returning it to the sender in the White House. I am aware the President currently in the White House might want to veto our repeal. There is, however, going to be a Presidential election in 2012, and this health care bill, this health care law, is going to be a defining issue in that election. 2012 is 2 years before the law will fully be implemented. We can get a supermajority to overturn his veto in the next election or we can get a new President who will support its repeal. I think both outcomes are possible. Let's all go on record now showing where we stand. I suspect there are some Democrats who might want to repeal this law before voters repeal them. The question is, do they have the courage to break with their party? For now, the President wants us to think his law can be fixed by modifying it slightly. It cannot be fixed. Trying to fix it with a few good ideas is like pouring a few glasses of fresh water into a polluted river. ObamaCare cannot be fixed by tinkering with its provisions, because the basic premise is flawed. This law is actively creating a government-controlled system that relies on high taxes, less choices, and bureaucrats making health care decisions for Americans. This is exactly what we are opposed to and why we insist on a full repeal. A recent analysis by the Center for Health Transformation found it will give the Secretary of Health and Human Services 1,968 new powers. Last year the Joint Economic Committee found that ObamaCare created 159 new Federal programs and bureaucracies to make decisions that should be made between patients and their doctors. If the Democrats and Federal bureaucrats are permitted to control our health care system, our Tax Code will look simple by comparison. Worst of all, in the rush to pass this legislation, none of its proponents cared if it was unconstitutional. They were not going to let the Constitution get in the way of their health care takeover. Even now, when asked about the constitutionality of the bill, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has said: I am leaving those arguments to our legal team from the Department of Justice. So far their legal team is losing. Two judges have told it like it is. ObamaCare has been ruled unconstitutional by judges in Virginia and Florida. The Virginia court held that the individual mandate requiring every American to purchase government-approved health insurance was unconstitutional. The Florida court ruled the entire bill was unconstitutional because of the individual mandate included in it. In his decision handed down on Monday, Florida District Judge Roger Vinson compared the law to a finely crafted watch in which one of the pieces is defective and must be removed. But what happens to ObamaCare when you remove that one piece, which is clearly unconstitutional? The rest of the law falls to pieces--as the judge might say: The watch will not work. Vinson wrote: ``I must conclude that the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit.'' An unconstitutional law that touches the most important personal decisions Americans ever make must not stand. We must repeal the bill in its entirety. Because at the very heart of it, which makes all of the other parts work, that very heart, that individual mandate, violates the highest law of our land. It is already failing Americans. Health care costs and premiums are going up, despite the false assumptions we hear on the other side. Choices and consumer control over the health care system are going down. By continuing to follow a failing plan, the government is planning to allow our health care system to fail. Obama's broken promises are going to create a broken future for our country. If we do not fully repeal this bill, it is going to add nearly half a trillion dollars in new health care taxes and raise the Federal budget deficit by more than $500 billion in the next 10 years, and nearly $1.5 trillion in the next decade. Yet the President says this is going to save us money. We know this so-called Affordable Health Care Act for America does not live up to its label. We must repeal this bill and implement commonsense solutions that will lower the cost of health care for consumers and make health insurance available to everyone, even with preexisting conditions. We should allow Americans to choose affordable plans across State lines, and we should end frivolous lawsuits that drive up costs, and give equitable tax treatment to those who do not get insurance from their employer. ObamaCare does none of this. The facts and figures tell it like it is. President Obama tells it like it isn't. It is time for Congress to tell it like it is and repeal ObamaCare. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I say Merry Christmas to all my colleagues. We never expected to find ourselves here this time of year, but obviously there are very important issues to discuss. On November 2, Americans made a pretty historic statement. After 2 years of many things being crammed down their throat that they did not like, they made historic changes in the House and the Senate. I think all expectations were that the new Congress would come in and begin to change things. Very few Americans--and I think very few of us in the Senate--actually thought we would use the time between that election and the swearing in of the new Members of Congress to continue to cram through more things America does not want. Most businesses have learned that if they ever have to make the difficult decision of firing someone, it is very important that person be sent home right away because getting fired usually makes people angry and less loyal to the company that fired them. Instead of dealing with all the mischief that might occur, the fired employee is sent home right away. We are a fired Congress in a lot of ways. America has sent us home. Many people who set the policies for the last 2 years have been unelected. Some have retired. But the decisions that are being made now in this Congress are decisions being made by people who have either retired or who have been turned out of office. So much is being pushed through because of the fear that if we actually let the newly elected Congressmen and Senators be sworn in before we take up these important issues that they will actually reflect the opinions of the American people and stop what we are doing. We have decided to use this lameduck session to push many items through. It is a very unaccountable Congress. We tried to push through a huge omnibus spending bill with thousands of earmarks, exactly the thing about which Americans have said no more. Thankfully, Republicans stood together to stop that bill. We needed to extend our current tax rates, but even in order to get a temporary extension, we in the minority had to agree to more deficit spending. In this lameduck session, we have pushed our political correctness on to our military by repealing don't ask, don't tell without the proper studies, without the proper phase-in time, and no rational approach to this. It was just check the box of another political payback. In another check the box of amnesty, the DREAM Act, which was brought up and fortunately Republicans stood against something that again avoided the big issue of border security. This Congress has continuously rejected the idea of carrying through on our own law to complete the double-layer fencing we put into law to protect the southern border. Thousands of people are being killed on the border because we refuse to take action. Yet we are continuing to try to expand the problem with more amnesty and citizenship and public benefits to those who came here illegally. The threat is now to keep us here until Christmas or beyond to pass what we are calling a 9/11 bill. Every Member of this Chamber-- Republicans and Democrats--wants to do what is right for the first responders who may have been injured after 9/11. But we owe it to the American people to be accountable to how we spend money. To put a bill on the floor, in an unaccountable lameduck Congress, that has not been through hearings, when we do not know how the millions of dollars have been used that we have already given to the same cause certainly is worth a few weeks of committee hearings and understanding exactly how to spend taxpayer money effectively in a way we know will help the people who have been injured. But, no, we have to push that through in a fired, unaccountable Congress. Of course, now the big issue of the day is somehow, in a time of economic recession and so many people being out of work, that we want to use this lameduck, unaccountable Congress to push through a major arms control treaty with Russia. Somehow that ended up on the top of our priority list, using Christmas as a backstop to try to force us to pass this bill. It is pretty interesting how this has progressed. The treaty had no chance of ratification until the President agreed to billions of dollars in modernization of our nuclear weapons. We have to stop and ask ourselves: Why should we have to have backroom trading going on to modernize our nuclear weapons? That should be something the President is committed to, that we are committed to. We should not have to trade for modernization. But now we appear to have enough Republicans who have decided this is a good treaty to ratify a few days before Christmas in a fired, unaccountable Congress, with the need to push it through before America's representatives actually get here the first of January. The sense here is if we let the people America just elected come, that maybe the treaty will need some modifications. There have been many questions expressed about the treaty. I think some of them are very legitimate. Clearly, missile defense is a problem. The Russians have expressed that Americans cannot develop any kind of comprehensive missile defense system under this treaty. We say: No, no. We can develop a limited missile defense system. We are going through all kinds of convoluted language to put things in nonbinding areas of this agreement, to say we are committed or we are going to communicate to the Russians that we are committed, but we even were unwilling to put it in the preamble that there is no linkage between the development of our missile defense system and this treaty agreement. Clearly, there is a linkage. The Russians believe there is a linkage. All the correspondence from the President says ``limited missile defense system.'' We obviously have agreed to it. We never could get the negotiating records to confirm that, but everything suggests there is an implicit and explicit agreement that America will not attempt to develop a missile defense system capable of defending against Russian missiles. Perhaps capable of defending against a rogue missile launch or an accidental missile launch, but the language in this treaty, communications from the White House, the hearings all say we will only have a limited missile defense system. There should be no mistake, there should be no confusion, the agreement to this treaty is an agreement for America not to develop a comprehensive missile defense system. If that is satisfactory, then let's ratify. Clearly, there are holes in the verification process of this treaty. The growing and biggest threat is tactical nuclear weapons. Shorter range missiles, ground-based, sub-based are not even included in this agreement. The Russians are fine with this. They were going down to the same long-range missile count we require in this treaty anyway. They give up nothing. We don't restrict any of their tactical developments. The verification is less stringent than in START I, with fewer inspections, and the ability to actually look at things such as telemetry are obviously omitted here. We can't ratify this treaty with any pretense that America is going to be any safer. In fact, I think the biggest problem with this treaty is the whole presumption it is built on--that America should be at parity with Russia. We have talked about it here in this Chamber, that we do not have the same role as Russia in this world. Russia is a protector of none and a threat to many. America is the protector of many and a threat to none. Over 30 countries live in peace under our nuclear umbrella, but we are saying we are going to reduce it, with a lot of questions as to whether we are going to modernize it, and we are telling our allies that tactical nuclear weapons are not going to be restricted in any way, which is probably their biggest concern because of their contiguous location to Russia.

Mr. DeMINT. Yes.

Mr. DeMINT. I want to thank the Senator from Oklahoma for bringing out another very important point. We are laser focused on this treaty with Russia, which obviously restricts our ability to develop missile defense. Yet we all seem to acknowledge the greatest growing threat in this world is from Iran and North Korea and other rogue nations that can develop nuclear technology. It is almost like watching a magician at play here, of getting us to look at one hand while other things are going on. We are not paying attention to the Nation's business here, and I am afraid this is just another ``check the box''--a foreign policy victory for the administration. If it did not have so many questions related to it, that would be fine, but not to jam this through with a fired, unaccountable Congress, and rushing it through before the representatives America just elected have been sworn in, and doing it as part of a list of legislation--a long list over the last 2 years-- that America does not want. I want good relations with Russia and countries all over the world, but I am afraid this is part of a continued effort of accommodation and appeasement; that if we show weakness, other countries will accommodate us. We need Russia to cooperate--with Russia and North Korea. Folks, I don't think this is the way to get it, and I don't think we are going to gain respect for our process of trying to do this under the cover of a distraction of a major holiday with a lameduck, unaccountable Congress. In the way this is being presented, it is a mockery of the debate process here in the Senate. We are not amending a treaty. We were told at the outset it is ``take it or leave it.'' The Russians are negotiating, clearly, from a position of strength, because they said, here is the treaty, take it or leave it; any changes and the treaty is dead. Is that the way America needs to deal with other countries? Is that the way the Senate should debate a major arms control agreement, where the majority party is saying, you can go talk about it if you want, but we are going to kill every amendment, even though we say we agree with a lot of them. There will be no changes in this. We are trying to stick some things in here in the areas of the treaty that have no binding aspect and say we have covered it, but we are making a mockery of the whole debate and ratification processes with an unaccountable, fired Congress, under the cover of Christmas, and a debate where we have been told ``take it or leave it.'' This is not what the Senate is about, this is not what Congress is supposed to be about, and certainly we should not be passing major legislation at this time of year with this Congress. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I still hope my colleagues will come to their senses and show the American people that we are going to act in a responsible way that respects what they told us on November 2; that this Congress needs to go, a new one needs to come in, and we need to stop cramming things down their throats they do not want. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I know we are discussing a number of different issues on the floor right now, and one of the most important, as my colleagues know, is the START treaty with Russia, and I wish to take a few minutes to talk about it. We all take our responsibility of advice and consent very seriously for nominations and particularly on a treaty of this magnitude. I am very disappointed that on something of this importance, we are bringing it up in a lameduck Congress at a time when Americans are distracted by one of the most holy holidays for Christians in this country. None of us minds working through the holidays or through the night on the Nation's business, but it is important that Americans participate in this process with us. They know many of the people who will be voting on this treaty are those who have been turned out of office by Americans in the last election, and they will also know that the reason to rush it through before new Members are sworn in is that those who will be carrying the voice of Americans into the next session may have a different view of some of the things we are doing here. It is important, as we look at this START treaty, to understand the implications and the background of this treaty. A number of my colleagues have talked about various aspects of it--about verification, the number of missiles--and I will touch on a few of these things. I respect the administration's intent to try to enlist the cooperation of Russia on other major issues, such as dealing with Iran and North Korea, and that this is a symbol of our willingness to work with them. I understand that. I understand that is one of the reasons a number of past Secretaries of State have said we need to do this. I think the administration and many recognize that this treaty only deals with intercontinental ballistic missiles--ICBMs--missiles we have had for years on the shelf as a deterrent, as part of that strategy of mutually assured destruction. Russia had its number of missiles and we had ours, with the understanding that if they fired missiles at us, we would fire missiles at them, and we would destroy each other--mutually assured destruction. These missiles don't defend Americans, except if you say maybe to deter Russians from firing their missiles at us. But as we understand that this treaty only deals with the ICBMs, we recognize it doesn't include many other weapons, such as tactical nuclear weapons, and we also understand it does not have any prohibitions on other countries developing nuclear weapons, nuclear missiles. We also understand that Russia has basically already met the limitations in this agreement. They are not going to have to draw down their number of missiles or warheads. The United States will reduce the number of missiles--ICBMs--it has. But, again, the other weapons, which are perhaps more dangerous and of more concern to some of our allies, are not included in this treaty. So I think part of the rationale of moving through with this is that it only deals with one type of missile that is perhaps of limited importance in today's world--although certainly the deterrence will continue to be part of our strategy--and we are just dealing with these so-called strategic weapons and not tactical weapons, and that we can give this up, we can reduce the number we have in order to gain Russia's cooperation in other matters. I understand that rationale. But this is more than just a treaty between the United States and Russia; it is a signal to our allies and to the whole world on what posture America will take in the future on defending our allies, what posture we will take particularly on missile defense. That is where I wish to focus most of my comments today. There was no argument in the hearings that this treaty is an implicit and explicit agreement by the United States not to develop a missile defense system that can defend against Russian missiles. That should be clear, and there is no argument. I think we have played with words a little bit in saying it does not limit our plans in missile defense. Our plans are to develop an unlimited system that can shoot down a rogue missile. But in the hearings with Secretary Gates, Secretary Clinton, Chairman Kerry, it was made very clear that this treaty--it made it clear to the Russians and to the whole world that the United States would not even attempt to develop a missile defense system capable of shooting down multiple missiles. Now, if Russia was the only country in the world capable of developing multiple nuclear missiles, perhaps we could discuss that within that context. But as we know today, there has been a proliferation of nuclear technology to many countries, including Iran and North Korea. We know that other countries such as Pakistan have nuclear weapons. It is not unrealistic to suggest that within a few years there may be numerous countries that have capabilities to fire multiple missiles at the United States or one of our allies. Americans need to know we are agreeing with this START treaty not to even attempt to develop a system to defend our citizens or our allies against multiple missiles. In the hearing, I made this very clear with a question: Is it our intent not to develop a missile defense system capable of defending against Russian missiles? Senator Kerry, Secretary Gates, and Secretary Clinton agreed that would destabilize our relationship with Russia. So everyone should be clear about what is happening here--that in order to enlist Russia's cooperation in other matters, we are agreeing to a continued strategy of mutually assured destruction not just with Russia but with any country that chooses to develop the ability to fire multiple missiles at one time. I don't think this treaty is going to decrease proliferation. I think on its face it will increase the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. Our enemies will know we don't have the ability to defend against missiles, and our allies will develop their own nuclear weapons because they know we no longer have the capability to defend against not just Russia's missiles, not just strategic missiles, but against tactical nuclear weapons. Russia has a 10-to-1 advantage right now with modern tactical nuclear weapons that are developed not as a deterrence but to be used on the battlefield. This treaty does not limit their ability to continue to develop these weapons. This treaty implicitly and I think explicitly says we are not going to develop any means to shoot down those shorter range missiles. For us to be considering something of this gravity during the holidays, when Americans are rightly paying attention to things other than politics, and to rush this through with a few days of debate, when for the last treaty I looked at, we had 9 days with many amendments, a lot of debate, and finally agreement--we will not only have limited debate and limited amendments, but we are going to try to push this through before we leave to go home for Christmas. The process is wrong. I would appeal to my colleagues to let this go until next year. Let's give a specific time agreement next year that we will debate this and we will have a vote on it and we will offer amendments and vote on those amendments and show the American people this was a full debate with full transparency about what is in this treaty and then let Senators vote on it, the Senators Americans have elected to speak for them here in the Senate. I have heard folks say on the Senate floor that we need to rush into this because we can no longer go days, weeks, and months without verification. I think a close look at the verification of the last treaty shows we weren't very close to what was actually going on. There are big loopholes in the verification aspects of this treaty, loopholes that are big enough to hide missiles and nuclear warheads, and I don't think there is a lot of debate about that. A few more weeks is not going to put our country in any more jeopardy. In fact, I think rushing this through could make the world much more dangerous. My hope is that my colleagues, particularly my Republican colleagues, those who have expressed an interest in voting for this, will say: Enough is enough. Pushing this legislation, along with repealing don't ask, don't tell, the DREAM Act and other bills we are doing at the same time, and all of these requests for unanimous consent to pass bills that people haven't read--there is just too much business, too many distractions to take on something of this gravity at this time in a lameduck Congress. So I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I respect those who feel as though this treaty is something we should do. But it is my hope that those people will reflect on the importance of this treaty, the signal it sends to our allies all over the world, and work with us to get an open and honest debate on this treaty at the beginning of next year. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I thank my new colleague from Illinois and associate myself with his remarks. Since the Chairman referenced my amendment, I appreciate his support of the idea of committing ourselves to developing a missile defense system that could protect against Russian missiles. But unfortunately during the debate in committee, when we offered this as a binding amendment on the treaty, it would not be accepted unless we moved it to a mere declaration, which has no force of law. But it is good we have brought it up and recognize it is a major point of contention in the adoption of this treaty. I would like to begin by speaking in support of the amendment of my colleagues, Senator John McCain and Senator John Barrasso, to strike the language in the treaty preamble that links offensive and defensive systems and limits our ability as Americans to protect our citizens. We know the Russians would like to limit our missile defense capabilities. Before President Obama signed the treaty, they expressed a desire to make the United States more vulnerable to future attacks. While discussions about the treaty were underway, Prime Minister Putin commented on American missile defenses. Last December, he said: ``By building such an umbrella over themselves, [the United States] could feel themselves fully secure and will do whatever they want.'' Prime Minister Putin got what he wanted. The Russians successfully linked missile defense to an offensive strategic nuclear weapons treaty. After President Obama signed the treaty, the Russian Government issued a statement that said the treaty ``can operate and be viable only if the United States refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.'' How much more clear could they be? The understanding of the Russians is that this treaty ties our hands and prohibits us from defending our citizens against Russian missile attacks. By giving the Russians this lever, the treaty damages the U.S. ability to defend against missile attacks. This has the effect of making America and her allies vulnerable, not only to Russia but to rogue nations. Russia should not be permitted to dictate whether we can develop our missile defense capabilities. No negotiations should require us to sacrifice our sovereignty. The United States has a constitutional duty to protect its citizens and a moral obligation to protect its allies. Former Director of the CIA James Woolsey said it well in an op-ed he wrote for the Wall Street Journal in November. In it, he asked: ``Why has the administration agreed to a treaty that limits our nonnuclear long-range weapons and runs the risk of constraining our missile defenses?'' The administration's unilateral statement on limited missile defense does not resolve this ambiguity. This treaty has a flawed premise which I would like to talk about for just a few minutes. The treaty is crafted out of the idea that the United States and Russia play the same role in the world. That is simply not true. The U.S. security umbrella covers over 30 countries. America is a protector of many. Russia, however, is a threat to many but a protector to none. America's commitments are much greater and parity is unacceptable, especially given Russia's large tactical arsenal, which is not covered at all in this treaty. Moreover, the New START treaty is intended to be a step toward the President's goal of a world without nuclear weapons. President Reagan, who has been quoted at length during this debate, believed the only way to get to a world without nuclear weapons was by making them ``impotent and obsolete'' through a strong missile defense system. He walked out of negotiations with the Russians rather than sacrifice our missile defense options. Now I would like to go through the ways the New START will reduce the U.S. forces, while Russia is not forced to make any reductions. All the reductions will be on our side. The Obama administration champions the fact that the treaty would limit both countries to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads each. However, given the loophole in the counting rules, the number that can be deployed is several hundred higher. That means no reductions are required on behalf of the Russians. The treaty's delivery vehicle limit is also troubling. The administration cannot even show the Senate how they intend to change the force structure to reach the new deployed delivery vehicle limits. Russia, however, is already well below the new limits. To be clear, Russia does not have to destroy any nuclear warheads as part of this treaty. The treaty does not deal with nuclear stockpiles or tactical nuclear weapons. Russia can maintain its huge stockpile of roughly 4,000 tactical nuclear weapons, thousands more than the United States has, because the treaty does not restrict those types of weapons, which can also be affixed to rockets, submarines, and attack aircraft. The administration lost a key opportunity to address the 10-to-1 disparity between Russia and the U.S. tactical nuclear weapons. Proponents argue we will address tactical nuclear weapons during the next treaty, but that was said during the debate on the last arms control treaty with Russia. The administration has also subjected advanced conventional U.S. military capabilities to limitation in this new START treaty. Why were these included? I also have questions about the verification measures in Russia's compliance. Why is it that the New START treaty has a substantially weaker verification regime than START I? Given Russia's history of cheating on arms control treaties, the weaker verification and inspection provisions in this treaty will only exacerbate the problem. I also have concerns about the negotiating records for this treaty. We have asked repeatedly for these records and the administration has refused to give Senators access to them. We have asked numerous times and there is a precedent from past ratification of arms control treaties to make it available. We need to see the negotiating records to find out exactly what concessions were made during the negotiating process--particularly given the disagreement between what the Russians are saying about missile defense and what we are saying. We need to see what was agreed to during the negotiations. By not providing negotiating records, the administration has only increased concerns. Supporters of this treaty would like everyone to believe this is a matter of urgent national security, but this is not true. I would like to quote former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, who said: They want to do [this treaty] before the lame duckers are out of there. That is not the way to move on this issue. I agree with the former Secretary. This is not the proper way to move on this issue. As the Washington Post noted in its editorial of November 19: No calamity will befall the United States if the Senate does not act this year. The Cold War threat of a nuclear exchange between Washington and Moscow is, for now, nonexistent. If it was so urgent, why did the administration allow the original START treaty, which included verification provisions, to lapse on December 5, 2009? Surely, they were aware it would be months before this treaty would be completed? After the START I treaty expired, the two countries issued a joint statement pledging ``to continue to work together in the spirit of the START Treaty following its expiration.'' But that never happened. Senator Lugar even had legislation that would have allowed the inspections to continue after December 5, but his legislation was ignored. If these verification measures are so urgent, it seems there would have been more of an effort to pass his bill. The administration's promise to bridge the agreement with Russia to preserve verification has failed. Special Assistant to the President Gary Samore stated last month he was ``not particularly worried, near-term by the lack of inspections.'' As I said earlier today, I take my responsibility of advice and consent very seriously. We would be harming this institution if we do not seriously evaluate the many serious flaws in this treaty. I worry about many of the long-term negative effects this treaty will have on our security, but I would also like to talk some and explain about why I oppose the treaty in the short term. First, we should not be ratifying this treaty during the lameduck session. It is unprecedented to do so. The Heritage Foundation crosschecked the dates of each lameduck session of Congress with the Senate date of treaty ratification for treaties going all of the way back to 1947 and found no major treaty has ever been ratified by a Senate during a lameduck session of Congress. Doing so would violate the principle of consent maintained by the government since the 20th amendment was passed in 1933. The first two sections of the 20th amendment were created to shorten the lameduck period after an election and before the new officials take office. Treaties ratified during a lameduck session are undemocratic, because many of those who support ratification are no longer accountable to the voters. At a minimum, we should wait until the new Senators are sworn in before we consider voting on this treaty. Let me note that this is only the second day of full debate of this treaty, during a very hectic session. And it is being dual-tracked or triple-tracked with other matters before the Congress and backed up to the Christmas break. We are still working on a way to make sure the government is funded. This Chamber is also considering holding votes on the DREAM Act and don't ask, don't tell and no telling what else. When the Senate considered the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, known as the INF, in 1998, the Senate gave it 9 days of floor time, and it was not dual or triple-tracked with other issues. We focused on it and had a debate. The first START treaty was available for the Senate's review for over 400 days. I share the concerns expressed earlier today by my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Bob Corker. He objected to the dual tracking of matters of national security with partisan issues. As we are debating this treaty, meetings are being held to strategize ways to get votes on other bills to reward special interests and fulfill campaign promises. The New START treaty will have many implications for our country's security and, surely, something as important as this deserves the Senate's full attention. As I conclude, I wish to thank again Senators McCain and Barrasso for their amendment, and for their thorough explanations of why it is so important. They were right to point out that the Bush administration worked very hard to break up the linkage between offensive and defensive missile systems. That is why former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote in a recent opinion editorial that: The Senate must make absolutely clear that in ratifying this treaty, the United States is not reestablishing the Cold War link between offensive forces and missile defenses. New START's preamble is worrying in this regard as it recognizes the interrelationship of the two. By passing the McCain-Barrasso amendment, we can fix this, and we can make sure that this treaty does not limit our ability to defend our citizens. I yield the floor and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise in tribute to Senator Jim Bunning, who is retiring after honorably serving the people of Kentucky for 24 years. Throughout his political career, Jim has been a fierce taxpayer's advocate. A bold defender of life and protector of families. A small business ally. And, a courageous critic of bad government policy. As the targets of his criticism have learned, Jim's words can sometimes be sharp. That is because cold, hard truths have sharp edges and Jim Bunning speaks in cold, hard truths. Even when it comes to his own party. In the summer of 2008, shortly after a Republican Treasury Secretary obtained the authority to pump unlimited money into Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Jim was rightfully upset. ``When I picked up the newspaper yesterday, I thought I woke up in France,'' he told the Secretary in a hearing. ``But no,'' Jim said, ``it turned out it was socialism here in the United States.'' Jim often asked simple questions that were easy to answer truthfully and didn't tolerate equivocation. In the case of the Fannie and Freddie bailouts, he asked the Treasury Secretary, ``Where will the money come from?'' The Treasury Secretary said it was better to ``be unspecified and enhance confidence in the market.'' Jim asked again saying that ``doesn't answer the question. Where is the money going to come from if you have to put it up?'' There was more waffling, but Jim finally pushed the Treasury Secretary to admit the money was going to come from the taxpayer. The taxpayers were going to pay. He later called for the resignation of that Republican Treasury Secretary because he was, as Jim put it, ``acting like the minister of finance in China.'' ``No company fails in Communist China, because they're all partly owned by the government,'' Jim noted. Jim has also been a brave critic of the Federal Reserve. He has told the Fed Chairman, who was appointed by a Republican President and helped orchestrate bailouts for those considered too big to fail that, ``You are the definition of a moral hazard.'' ``Your Fed has become the creature from Jekyll Island,'' Jim said. And then he asked for the Fed Chairman's resignation, too. Jim has performed a great public service by bringing attention to the economic damage being caused by the Fed with cheap money when no one else would. He was there calling for more oversight of the Federal Reserve long before it became a Tea Party cause and he deserves credit for driving the issue into the mainstream. As Senator, you could say Jim's approach has been direct as the fastballs he threw that made him a major league, Hall of Fame pitcher. When the Democrats tried to pass off phony paygo rules as real reform, Jim exposed it as a trick pitch. It was a gimmick to fool Americans into thinking they would pay for their big-spending plans. The Democrats said paygo would obligate Congress to offset any new spending with new revenues or spending cuts elsewhere in the budget. Soon after, they tried to pass $10 billion in unpaid for unemployment extensions Moreover, the Democrats wanted to pass it by unanimous consent. Meaning, no public debate. No rollcall vote. No accountability. The Democrats bet no one would oppose benefits for the unemployed in this bad economy. They believed, as they continue to, that they can keep giving out money without paying for it and without any consequences. Jim did not concede. He objected and stood his ground on the Senate floor. And by doing so, he showed everyone what a sham paygo is. The Wall Street Journal called it ``his finest hour.'' Bunning announced his retirement in July 2009, more than a year ago. He could have taken it easy during his last years in the Senate. He didn't have to tackle the Treasury, the Fed or insist unemployment extensions be paid for. But, he did. Jim Bunning, the Hall of Fame Pitcher, the distinguished Senator, father of 9 and grandfather of 40 cared too much for this country to sit this one out. He said in his farewell speech that he prays the Members of Congress will stop spending our future generations into higher taxes and a lower standard of living than we have now. I pray for that, too. Finally, I express my gratitude to Senator Bunning for supporting the new Republican from his state who will inherit his Senate seat next year. Jim campaigned for someone to take his place who would say no to bailouts, stop the takeovers, end the wasteful spending and bring down the national debt. The nation will benefit greatly by continuing to have a senator at Jim's desk who believes as much in the principles of free markets and freedom as Jim. Thank you Jim for giving America your best until the very last inning. Sam Brownback I rise in tribute to my good friend, Senator Sam Brownback, who will soon be Governor Sam Brownback. Senator Brownback leaves this Chamber as a man of character and success. He made a promise to the citizens of Kansas to only serve two terms in the U.S. Senate and he is honoring it. He will continue to serve his constituents well, as he will soon join the ranks of Republican Governors who are committed to saving freedom and free-markets. Sam and his fellow Republican Governors will stand sentry in their state capitols, defending Americans from unaffordable mandates and unprecedented intrusions by the Federal Government. The current Secretary of Health and Human Services, Democrat Kathleen Sebelius, left Topeka to come to Washington and impose an unconstitutional health care takeover on all Americans. I am confident Republican Governor-elect Sam Brownback, who is leaving Washington for Topeka, will successfully fight for state rights in court and preserve freedom for Kansans. Sam won on a platform of opportunity, accountability and responsibility--the very principles his State was founded upon. His ``Road Map for Kansas'' is built on ideas to grow the economy, create private-sector jobs, improve education, reform the state government and support Kansas families. This is exactly the kind of leadership our nation so desperately needs. His five-point plan is a clear and bright as the tips of the stars on the Kansas flag. In addition to the roadmap for Kansas, Sam has promised to institute a spending freeze for his State his very first month in office. It has been an honor to serve alongside Sam, one of our nation's premier pro-life leaders. He knows no one should be denied the right to life--especially the unborn. As he said in a speech at the 2004 March for Life, ``If we demean and degrade one human life, we demean and degrade all human life.'' As a U.S. Senator, Sam relentlessly fought to protect the unborn. He was the principle sponsor of the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, the Prenatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, and others. He has also worked to advance the Partial- Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Sam has increased awareness about the joy of adoption. He can personally attest to it. He and his wife Mary and three children Abby, Andy and Elizabeth have welcomed two children in need of a loving home into their lives. The Brownback's youngest son Mark is from Guatemala. Their youngest daughter Jenna is from China, where families are subjected to grave and callous one-child policy. Thank you Sam for fighting for a better life for all of God's children. As we bid him farewell, I would like to reflect on one short passage from his book, ``From Power to Purpose.'' In it, Sam wrote ``The heart of the matter is the human heart, which is where human goodness begins.'' That shows the kind of heart Sam has for public service. His tenure in the U.S. Senate is marked by his compassion and care for his fellow man. He will be dearly missed here in Washington. But, as Jesus said, ``There are many rooms in my Father's house.'' And Sam is just moving to another room where he will continue to serve God. george voinovich