Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I wish to associate myself with Leader McConnell and thank him for his leadership on the Guantanamo Bay issue. I know as the President looks to close this facility which costs the American taxpayers $275 million, people around the country, including in my own State of South Carolina, are concerned that we will now move some of the world's most dangerous people into a civilian area that is not designed for this type of security threat. I appreciate the leadership of Senator McConnell in trying to bring some rational thinking. Honduras I wish to take a break from the discussion of Guantanamo Bay and the appropriations bills to discuss briefly the situation in Honduras. Honduras is one of America's best allies in this hemisphere. For the last 4 months they have been involved in a constitutional crisis. I have been very critical of the administration's handling of the Honduras situation. In fact, I have held two nominees, one to Latin America and one to Brazil, in order to shine a spotlight on the situation and get this administration and this Congress to focus on what I consider very bad policy toward a very close friend of the United States. While I have been critical, it is important, when the administration changes its view and puts things on the right course, to thank Secretary Clinton, Secretary Tom Shannon for their work in Honduras. I also wish to talk a little bit about the situation. As part of my talk, I want Senator Reid to know it is my intent to release my holds on the nominees so they can move forward, now that I believe the administration has set a good course for our allies in Honduras. Let me take a few minutes to go through the background of the situation. Not many people have paid much attention to it. Over 4 months ago, I believe our administration rushed to judgment in declaring the removal of President Zelaya from office as a military coup. All branches of the Honduran Government agreed that he should have been removed. The congress, the electoral tribunal, the attorney general, the supreme court, all institutions of democracy in Honduras, agreed the president had violated the constitution and the law and needed to be removed from office. For weeks leading up to his arrest, President Manuel Zelaya defied his nation's laws and attempted to illegally rewrite the Honduran constitution so he could remain in office past his term. That probably sounds familiar because that is the same course Hugo Chavez has taken in Venezuela and Ortega in Nicaragua. We know about the Castros, of course. It is a pandemic in Latin America that democracies elect leaders who change the constitution and become dictators. Zelaya was on the same course until the democratic institutions in Honduras stopped him short. He attempted to force a national vote to allow himself to stay in office. He went so far as to lead a violent mob to try to retrieve ballots printed in Venezuela that had been confiscated by the Honduran authorities so he could not have the national referendum he wanted. As I mentioned before, every Honduran institution supported his removal because of his open defiance of the laws and the constitution. The people of Honduras have struggled too long to have their hard-won democracy stolen from them by a would-be dictator. The Honduran Government had little choice but to act in accordance with the Honduran constitution and their own rule of law. They had to remove Zelaya from office to protect their democracy. Since June, the Law Library of Congress made public a thorough report defending the actions undertaken by the Honduran institutions in contradicting the claims made by the Obama administration. Our own State Department said they have secret legal memos of their own supporting their actions, but they have refused our request to release them and have kept them hidden from the public. Instead of siding with the Honduran people, the administration decided to put their full support behind Mr. Zelaya, who is a close ally of Hugo Chavez and who the State Department even said had undertaken provocative actions that led to his removal. Despite this admission, the Obama administration has waged a war directly against the Honduran people by denying visas, terminating aid, and refusing to acknowledge that free and fair elections would solve the problems in Honduras. The Presidential election is on schedule for November 29. It has been scheduled that way since 1982, when their constitution was put in place. Under Honduras's one-term-limit requirement, Zelaya could not have sought reelection anyway. The current president, Roberto Micheletti, whom I just got off the phone with, was installed after Zelaya's removal per the constitution. He is not on the ballot either. He is not seeking power in Honduras. The Presidential candidates were nominated in primaries over a year ago, and all of them, including Zelaya's former vice president, expect these elections to be free and fair and transparent, as has every other Honduran election for almost a generation. I have been terribly disappointed with the administration's policies on Honduras and have consistently argued that the upcoming November 29 elections are the only way out of this mess. We as a nation have to send a signal that we will recognize these elections. I personally visited Honduras last month and was satisfied as to the legitimacy of the interim government of Micheletti and as to the legitimacy of the long-scheduled Presidential elections that will be held later this month. I am happy to report that after many months, Secretary Clinton and Assistant Secretary Shannon have led the Obama administration back in the right direction. I met yesterday with Assistant Secretary of State of Latin America Tom Shannon and spoke today with Secretary Clinton. I can report that we now appear to be on the right track. Both Assistant Secretary Shannon and Secretary Clinton assured me that notwithstanding any previous statements by administration officials, the United States will recognize the November 29 Honduran election, regardless of whether the Honduras Government votes to reinstate Zelaya. They have made it clear the administration will recognize the elections, regardless of whether the Honduran Congress votes on the Zelaya reinstatement before or after the November 29 election. The independence, transparency, and fairness of those elections has never been in doubt. Thanks to the reversal of the Obama administration, the new government sworn into office next January can expect the full support of the United States and, I hope, the entire international community. I applaud the administration. I am thankful they have ended their focus on whom I consider a would-be dictator and are now standing firmly with the Honduran people and for a Honduran solution to the problem. Today starts a major step forward for the cause of freedom and democracy for the western hemisphere, for the United States, and especially for the brave people of Honduras. They are proving that despite crushing hardships and impossible odds, freedom and democracy can succeed anywhere people are willing to fight for it. The condemnation heaped on the free people of Honduras these last several months never had to happen. The Obama administration erred in its assessment of the situation in Honduras because of a rush to judgment based on bad information. We have all learned a lesson about distinguishing friends from foes and the paramount importance of constitutional democracy to international stability. For months I have made it clear I would continue to object to two State Department nominations until the United States reversed its flawed Honduras policy. My goal has been to get this administration to recognize the November 29 elections. Now that this has happened, I will keep my part of the bargain and release these holds. I will notify Senator Reid that these nominations can move ahead on his schedule. It is no secret that I have been critical of the administration on their handling of these issues. But I take this opportunity today to thank Secretary Clinton and Assistant Secretary Shannon for reengaging the Honduran Government and working out a solution that President Micheletti and the government in Honduras, as well as the Honduran people, feel is fair. There are still a number of concerns. As I talked to President Micheletti moments ago, he is concerned that the Organization of American States continues to support deposed President Zelaya and is organizing, along with Zelaya, a lot of mischief related to the upcoming elections, encouraging people to take to the streets and violence. I hope the State Department and the Obama administration, along with Congress, will continue to support the Honduran people and make sure the Organization of American States and any other country will support the agreement that has been signed by the people in Honduras and that we have agreed to. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on this issue, to bring it to the attention of this Congress and the American people. I look forward to releasing the holds on these nominations and continue to follow the situation closely, particularly the November 29 elections, as Honduras continues as a free and democratic nation. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the hate crimes provision inserted in the Defense authorization conference report, first, of course, because hate crime legislation has nothing to do with the Defense Department or with national security. Hate crimes actually have nothing to do with crimes or with hate. It is very cynical that this bill that funds our soldiers, who are fighting for our Constitution and our country, actually undermines the very principles they are fighting for. There are many practical problems with hate crimes legislation. The broad language will unnecessarily overextend Federal law enforcement personnel. It will undermine the effectiveness and confidence of local law enforcement. It will create conditions for arbitrary and politicized prosecutions of certain cases. I wish to focus on the basic, fundamental problems with any Federal hate crimes legislation. The rule of law requires opposition to this principle or this idea that we treat crimes differently. Let me first state the obvious. Hate crimes are wrong. That is why they are already illegal. That is why they are already prosecuted. That is why the rights of victims are defended by law enforcement authorities at every level of government. Strictly as a matter of justice, the hate crimes provision in this report is offensive. It suggests that violence committed against certain kinds of victims is worse, more in need of Federal intervention and swift justice. I am sure most parents of a minority, a homosexual or female victim would appreciate the extra concern, but the other side of the coin is the implication that these crimes committed against a nonspecial person should have less punishment. Where does that leave the vast majority of victims' families who, because of the whims of political correctness, are not entitled under this legislation to special status and attention? How can a victim's perceived status or the perpetrator's perceived opinions possibly determine the severity of a crime? The 14th amendment explicitly guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law. But these hate crime provisions create a special class of victims whose protection of the law will be, in Orwell's phrase, more equal than others. If some are more equal than others, some must be less equal. It is, then, inevitable that this hate crimes provision will create the very problem it purports to solve. This provision will also move our Nation a dangerous step closer to another Orwellian concept: thought crimes. It would criminalize certain ideas, and those ideas' involvement in a crime will make the crime more deserving of prosecution. The problem, of course, is that politicians are claiming the power to decide which thoughts are criminal and which are not. Canadians right now live under this kind of regime where so- called human rights commissions, operating outside the normal legal process, prosecute citizens for espousing opinions the commissioners disagree with. Today in the United States only actions are crimes. If we pass this conference report, opinions will become crimes. What is to stop us from following the lead of the European countries and American college campuses where certain speech is criminalized? Can priests, pastors, and rabbis be sure their preaching will not be prosecuted, if it says certain things are right and wrong? Again, in Canada, for instance, Pastor Stephen Boissoin was so prosecuted by Alberta's Human Rights Commission for publishing letters critical of homosexuality. Or will this provision serve as a warning to people not to speak out too loudly about their religious views, lest Federal agents come knocking at their door? What about the unintended consequences such as pedophiles and sex offenders claiming protected status under this provision as being disabled? There is no such thing as a criminal thought, only criminal acts. Once we endorse the concept of thought crime, where will we draw the line? More importantly, who will draw that line? Under existing law, if my own children were attacked in a violent crime, justice would demand that their attackers be pursued no more or less than the attackers of any other children. We all say we want a color-blind society, but we cannot have a color-blind society if we continue to write color-conscious laws. Our culture cannot expect to treat people equally if the law--if our ruling class--treats citizens not according to the content of their character but according to their race, sex, ethnic identity, or gender identity. I urge my colleagues to consider the implications of what we are doing, the raw cynicism of attaching this type of controversial legislation to a bill that funds the defense of the country. What type of legislative extortion will they consider next? I have the choice here to vote for hate crimes legislation that I believe would undermine the very justice system of the country or to vote against the defense of my country. I don't think we could be more cynical. I urge colleagues to oppose this conference report unless and until the principle of equal justice is upheld and the report's hate crimes provisions are removed. 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 apologize for your having to listen to me again this week, but I thank you for recognizing me, and actually I want to talk about something pretty serious. I think as Americans look in--and I guess in our relationships here-- cynicism is becoming so much a part of what we are doing. As a matter of fact, trying to stop cynicism here in Washington is like trying to stop water from flowing downhill. Every time the American people succeed in forcing sunlight and transparency on the political process, politicians find another corner to hide in. The latest trick is the majority's practice of accepting popular amendments to legislation while fully intending to strip those amendments out of the final bill that we send to the President. There were at least four of these amendments stripped from the conference report that is in front of us today. One of the amendments--authored by Senator Sessions--permanently authorized the E-Verify Program and made it mandatory for all government contractors. That is very important to the American people, very important to employers, to be able to determine whether they are hiring a worker who is here legally. That was thrown out. Senator Vitter had an amendment which allowed the implementation of what is called the ``no match'' rule, which essentially says that if a name and a Social Security number don't match, that the employer is immediately identified. That was thrown out. Senator Grassley had an amendment to allow employers to voluntarily verify the status of current employees. That was thrown out. Then there was my amendment to require the Department of Homeland Security to complete the 700-mile reinforced fence along the Southwest border by the end of 2010. It passed on this Senate floor 54 to 44. This amendment was stripped, along with all the others. As always, Washington politicians respect the people's wrath when the cameras are on us, but they do not respect the people's opinions when the cameras are turned off. As everyone here is aware, the American people are adamant about securing our southern border. It is a matter of security, it is a matter of jobs, it is a matter of drug trafficking and weapons trafficking. Thousands of Mexicans have been killed because of our unwillingness to control our own border. In 2006, overwhelming public opinion forced Congress to order the construction of a 700-mile reinforced double fence by 2010. Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have dragged their feet, and so far we only have 34 miles actually completed. The Department of Homeland Security claims 661 miles are completed, but that is not according to the law we passed because they count single- layer fencing and vehicle barriers, which do nothing to stop pedestrian traffic. My amendment would have reasserted a promise--a law--that Congress has already passed. Leaders of both parties have repeatedly tried to break this promise. We are learning there is almost nothing that politicians won't do to get out of promises they make in the daylight, especially if they can pretend to keep the promises. This is staggering cynicism, and it is undemocratic. It violates our whole principle of the rule of law. But this problem goes well beyond our unkept promises to cure our southern border. Earlier today, we considered the conference report on Energy and Water--the Energy and Water spending bill. That report also stripped out a popular amendment offered by Senator Coburn to require all reports under the law to be made available to the public. The majority is now so afraid of public scrutiny that they have to go behind closed doors to complete amendments they earlier accepted to guarantee transparency. This is now a pattern and a practice of the least transparent Congress in American history. That should give all of us pause, especially when we consider these same politicians are right now behind closed doors planning the takeover of one-sixth of our economy, if this health care bill succeeds. They have promised the bill won't add to the deficit, promised it won't force people off their health care plans, promised it won't pay for abortions or cover illegal immigrants, and promised thousands of other things. The problem is we don't know what is in the bill. In the context of this back-room amendment stripping, these promises cannot be delivered, and this process cannot be trusted. I encourage my colleagues to recognize that we need to make good on our promises. Both parties in this Congress have talked a lot about ethics and transparency. When we accept a bill on the floor, with the American people looking, but then strip it when the American people are not looking, our whole process is denigrated. This bill in particular, containing issues that deal with illegal immigration, which our country is so engaged in--and particularly at a time when people are losing their jobs, many times to workers who are not legal--is a very sensitive issue to the American people. For this amendment to be voted on and passed and then stripped out makes no sense at all. I encourage my colleagues not to support this conference report. It has stripped out the will of the American people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments in the middle of the debate on the Defense appropriations bill to talk about a situation in Honduras and, maybe equally important, a situation here in the Senate. Honduras has come to the attention of many Americans because of the change in government there and the questions about whether this was done constitutionally. I had arranged a trip, along with a few House Members, to go to Honduras and meet with officials and find out more about the situation. Unfortunately, I found out this afternoon that the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee was blocking my trip, along with the State Department. It is very concerning since no Member of the Senate has taken the time to go to Honduras, which is a very close ally to this country, where we have a military base. And they certainly depend on our support. I have a growing concern of what appears to be intimidation and bullying from our administration, and I wanted to have a fact- finding trip. This body normally accords fellow Members the courtesy, and this was very disturbing that we would use politics to block a trip such as this. But I wish to give a little bit of background on Honduras. Since so many other things are going on, not many people here in the Senate seem to even be aware of the situation. On June 28, then-President Manuel Zelaya was removed from office and arrested by the Honduran military, on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court, and in accordance with the Honduran Constitution. Charged with crimes of both public corruption and abuse of power, President Zelaya was attempting to subvert the Honduran Constitution and install himself as a dictator in the mold of his close friend Hugo Chavez. Within hours, the Obama administration made an uninformed decision to call this constitutional process a ``coup,'' despite no one at the State Department or the White House having made a thorough review of the facts and the law. Instead, we simply follow the lead of the Western Hemisphere's most corrupt and anti-American tyrants: Fidel Castro of Cuba, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. The President sided with these thugs and against Honduras--a poor, loyal, and democratic friend of the United States. To date, I am unaware of any provision in the Honduran Constitution that was violated in Zelaya's removal from office, except perhaps removing him from the country instead of putting him in jail. The Congress, of Zelaya's party, the Supreme Court, the Attorney General, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, and the vast majority of the Honduran people support Zelaya's removal. The Honduran military has remained at all times under civilian control. The November 29 elections remain on schedule. Interim President Roberto Micheletti is not on the ballot. The nominees for the major political parties are campaigning, and the country's citizens are preparing for a free, fair, and transparent election. If that does not sound like a coup to you, you are not alone. Last month, a thorough report--and I have it here--by the Congressional Research Service found that the removal of Zelaya and the actions of the Congress and Supreme Court were both legal and constitutional--a very detailed evaluation which apparently the administration has not taken the time to see. There was no coup. But the Obama administration, nevertheless, has cut off Honduras from millions of dollars of badly needed United States aid. The trip I planned--which is tomorrow--along with three Members of the House of Representatives was to get to the bottom of this so we could report back to the Senate and the House as to what was going on. Our trip met every necessary criteria. I have scheduled meetings with President Micheletti, the Supreme Court, and the leading candidates in next month's Presidential election. I was going to meet with the business and civic leaders. This afternoon, I was informed that the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, was blocking the trip. No reason was given, except that there were concerns at the State Department. If I were the Obama State Department, I would have concerns too, concerns the American people might find out the truth about what we are doing to the Honduran people. To date, not a single Member of the Senate has assessed the situation in Honduras firsthand, and the Obama administration refuses to allow Honduran leaders and even private citizens to come here to talk to us. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid of the world discovering that their policy is based on a lie concocted by Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers? That we are backing a corrupt would-be tyrant? This administration is only too eager--or at least seems to be too eager--to talk to any anti-American tyrant on Earth, but not even Members of Congress may visit a loyal ally 3 hours away. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, for stepping in and authorizing the trip. He would like to get to the bottom of this as well. The trip is back on, and I look forward to reporting back to the Senate next week after my return. But this is an outrage, if not a surprise. For 8 months, President Obama has circled the globe, apologizing for America, appeasing our enemies, and insulting our friends. Meanwhile, the President has spent more time lobbying for the Olympics and appearing on late-night comedy shows than meeting with his advisers about the troop surge in Afghanistan. Apparently, the administration is upset with me because I am asking for a debate and vote on two nominations they want for the State Department. Indeed, I was told today if I lifted my holds, the trip would be authorized by the Foreign Relations Committee. The two nominees are Thomas Shannon, currently Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America, President Obama's nominee to be Ambassador to Brazil, and Arturo Valenzuela, currently an academic nominated to replace Shannon at the Latin American desk. I am asking for debate and a vote on Mr. Shannon's nomination because he has supposedly been behind our policy in Latin America in recent years. Our mistakes in Honduras occurred on his watch, and with his advice. He was a Bush appointee, but I have a lot of questions about what is going on in Honduras. He supports the Obama aid cutoff and the ``coup'' classification. He hardly deserves now to represent America in the largest country in Latin America, at least without a debate and a vote. Mr. Valenzuela shares these positions, even though he admitted at his confirmation hearing he was not up to date on the facts. Unless and until the Obama administration reverses its ill-informed and baseless claim that Zelaya's removal was a coup and also restores American aid, I will continue to ask for a debate and vote on these nominees so we can discuss the issue openly on the floor of the Senate. This country also needs to recognize the upcoming election, which has been going on. The campaign is open and transparent, but the Obama administration is threatening not to recognize the election, which is destabilizing the country and threatening to do more harm not only in Honduras but throughout Latin America. This policy is confirming Hugo Chavez. It certainly is not confirming a constitutional form of government. I look forward to reporting back to my fellow Members what I find in Honduras. I again thank Mitch McConnell for taking the initiative to make sure the trip is authorized. With that, Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the rule XXVIII point of order to be raised by Senator McCain against the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. I voted against this bill the first time it came through the Senate and now it is even worse. In fact, we violated one of our new ethics rules we talk so much about in the Senate and in the House where these conference bills cannot contain a provision that was not part of either the House or Senate bill. We call that ``air dropping.'' But we air- dropped some significant things into this bill, violating our own ethics rule. First, we added a 1-month continuing resolution that funds our government since we haven't finished our work here in the Congress, but we also added a $4 billion bailout for the Postal Service into this conference report bill, again, violating our own ethics rule. The air- dropped provisions are undemocratic. There was no debate or transparency. Like earmarks, it is another tactic politicians use to have an end run around our constitutional limits. It is also wrong for Congress to fund itself while allowing all other government agencies to operate under a short-term continuing resolution. In 1995, President Clinton vetoed the legislative branch bill for this reason: Congress should not take care of its own business before it takes care of the people's business. If we are going to pass a continuing resolution, it should cover the entire government until we can have a transparent process that the American people can see. The only reason these tricks are pulled is that politicians don't want people to see what we are doing. Even worse than the process that has been used for this legislation are the policies contained within it. Around the country, families and businesses are having to tighten their belts because of the recession. Many are out of work. At the same time, we are increasing our budgets dramatically here. This legislative branch bill itself has increased nearly 6 percent versus last year, despite the growing debt and the serious economic problems we are having as a country. Just a couple of statistics from the bill: We have increased spending 128 percent for the House office buildings; a 155-percent increase for the Government Printing Office; a 6.2-percent increase for the Senate whip offices; a 4.3-percent increase for Senate leader offices; a 4.1- percent increase for Speaker Pelosi's office; a 4.3-percent increase in the Vice President's office; and don't forget a $200,000 earmark for a museum in Nebraska. If we were in prosperous times and had plenty of money, surpluses, then perhaps some of these increases would make sense, but not at a time when we see all Americans hurting and having to tighten their belts. This is one of the smaller increases compared to the ones that have gone through in the last couple of weeks. We are spending our Nation into bankruptcy. Our debt is almost as large as our entire economy, and growing by $1 trillion every year. Long-term deficits for Medicare and Social Security are more than $100 trillion. We have no idea how we are going to keep our promises to seniors. When will all this end? The head of the World Bank, a former U.S. Trade Representative, is questioning whether the U.S. dollar will long remain the world's reserve currency because of our spending and because of our debt. A few weeks ago I noted that some officials in Zimbabwe were concerned about America, our spending and our debt, and what could happen to our currency. They have good reason to. A friend of mine who returned from Zimbabwe brought me one piece of their currency. This is a 100 trillion dollar bill from Zimbabwe. It is so worthless he gave it away as a souvenir. They are worried about our debt. We need to be worried about it too. This bill also includes a $4 billion bailout for the Postal Service, the third bailout they have gotten in 8 years. But the money is not contingent on any reforms within the Postal Service, so the underlying waste will continue and require another bailout in the next year or two. Why would we bail out the Postal Service without any requirement that they reform their policies, the policies that have led to this mess? There are some very obvious things we could do. We could save $50 million by stopping paying employees an average of 45,000 hours of standby time. We could close unnecessary post offices. There is a long list of things we could do to reform the Post Office so that we don't continue to bail them out with taxpayer money, but there is nothing in this bill about doing that. It is only another bailout, another giveaway. So simply bailing them out will only prolong the problems and cost the taxpayers more money. In sum, if we look at the legislative branch bill, it is bad policy, it has followed a bad process, and it continues this out-of-control spending and debt for our country. It does not deserve our vote. I thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I would like to talk about an issue that is very important to our country. It involves our food supply and it involves thousands of jobs. While it may appear to affect just one State, the input we are getting from around the country is that this is very much a national issue. I have an amendment to address it which I would like to discuss. This amendment, I believe, if we would take the time, we could find agreement. It addresses a major problem in the State of the Senator from California, but it also addresses a problem that affects the Nation's food supply by allowing us to focus on balancing jobs, the economy, and food with environmental laws. As the chairman knows, there is a major water problem in California's Central Valley. Some very narrowly interested environmental groups have used the Endangered Species Act to shut off water to a region that produces 13 percent of the Nation's food supply. The result has been devastating. The land is dry, crops have been destroyed, and tens of thousands of jobs--tens of thousands of people are out of work. A recent University of California, Davis, study found that up to 40,000 jobs will be lost by the end of this year. In one city, the unemployment rate has reached 40 percent. This is certainly a local water crisis, but it has also become a national issue. The problem has been the subject of several national television programs, and people across the country are beginning to realize that this problem on the west coast could touch us all in the form of higher food prices if we don't address it. It is also another precedent that affects my State, as environmentalists have really swung the balance away from good economy and jobs to something that seems much more radical to us--the development of our port in South Carolina, the passage of ships. And you see development all over the country being affected. So we need to focus on this issue in this bill. This is a good place for the amendment. It is almost impossible to overstate the value of California's agriculture to the Nation's economy, most of which is produced--most of the food supply we are talking about--right in the Central Valley. This region provides the lion's share of California's crops, which account for, and I want to stress this, 94 percent of America's tomatoes, 93 percent of our broccoli, 89 percent of our carrots, 86 percent of our garlic, 78 percent of our lettuce, 90 percent of our strawberries, and 88 percent of our grapes, just to name a few. We can hardly say this is the issue of one State. This is a national issue that we need to address. People are also coming to realize that if we do not begin to bring a measure of balance back to our environmental laws, special interest groups and activist courts will be able to use this statute and others to destroy thousands of jobs at a time when our country is in recession. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for her work on this issue. The senior Senator from California has been a leader. She has pledged to work with the Department of Interior to find a solution, and she recently called for an independent review of the science underlying the two biological opinions that created this manmade drought. My amendment today is very simple and represents a modest and balanced approach. It turns the water back on for 1 year to provide time for all leaders at the local, State, and Federal levels to find a long-term solution. It will also give farmers the predictability they need to plan for next year's crops. They can't make the loans and get the seeds and plow the fields if they know in December the water will be turned off again and won't be turned back on until after July. One cannot farm with that type of unpredictability. I know there are those who say there is no problem because the pumps are currently on. But those pumps are set to shut off in December, leaving Central Valley farms dry as planting season comes around. My amendment has precedent. In fact, the last time this environmental provision was waived was in 2003, when water was turned off in New Mexico. That time the Senate voted unanimously for a bill that included a complete waiver of ESA for 2 years, which was even more aggressive than what I am proposing today. I know this is a very important issue to the Senator from California. I hope she will support my amendment. I know many people are working on long-term solutions, but we need to do something now. The provision in the bill to study this is likely to take 2 years. We are likely to lose another 2 years of farm products as well as thousands of jobs in the Central Valley. This is not something I have made up on my own. A number of groups, farm groups in California, as well as the National Cotton Council of America, the Tulare County Farm Bureau, Fresno County Farm Bureau, Kings County Farm Bureau, Families Protecting the Valley, Westland Water District--I have a whole page of large groups that involves many jobs and families in California and across the country supporting this amendment which won't cost taxpayers anything but will actually create jobs, put people back to work, and expand the Nation's food supply. We cannot allow a judge or radical environmental group to cut off water to people who are producing the Nation's food supply. My amendment would address this in a very reasonable way. I call on the Senator from California to work with me in support of this amendment. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and send my amendment to the desk.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I am disappointed I was unable to offer the amendment. Certainly it relates to the underlying bill. Since there are so many people and jobs across the country depending on us doing something quickly, I send a motion to the desk.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California. I look forward to more discussion, because I know there are many people in the Senate concerned about the same issue. There may be better ways to resolve the problem. I am certainly open to work with anyone. This is an immediate problem. We cannot continue to spend trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to create jobs while we allow government agencies to shut down jobs and jeopardize food supply. We need to be able to act as a body to solve some small problems instead of what we are doing here, which is to totally revamp the health care system or major changes that do not address the problems right in front of our face. I encourage my colleagues to consider this. Let's debate it and discuss it. I believe we can come up with a solution.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, this issue shines a spotlight on the utter stupidity of what this body does so often. Lawsuits cut off water to one of the most fertile farming communities in our country that supplies 13 percent of our food supply. About 40,000 people are now out of work because of this arbitrary lawsuit. Now President Obama has declared it a disaster area so we can spend more taxpayer money to bail out the small businesses we are putting out of business. All this amendment does is restrict the use of funds to cut off water to the farmers in California that affect this whole Nation. It is not a California issue, it is an American issue. It makes no sense in a recession to put people out of work and to arbitrarily, with no good science involved here, cut off water from the farmers of America. I have a list of farm bureaus throughout California, the National Cotton Council, and people all over this country who are saying enough is enough. Let us use some common sense. Please support this motion.

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I wish to speak to an amendment of mine that is to be on the floor on the transportation bill in a few minutes. It is an amendment that would cut funding to a particular airport in Pennsylvania. I wish to discuss why we are targeting this particular cut. As all of us know, all over America for the last several months, millions of Americans have come out to TEA parties and townhalls, expressing concern and even anger over the level of spending and borrowing and debt we are incurring here in Congress; the concern about all the new taxes we are talking about; the takeover of everything from General Motors to insurance companies. People are concerned, I think for a lot of good reasons. The question is now, particularly after the hundreds of thousands of people gathered in front of the Capitol last Saturday from all over the country, expressing many of those same concerns: Is anybody listening? Is anyone here listening? It reminds me of a couple of weeks ago when my 2\1/2\-year-old grandson was spending the night with my wife and me. He was sleeping in another room, and we have these intercoms that everyone knows about. He knows about the intercom and how it works, so when he got up in the morning, as usual about 6:30 or something, he said: I am up. Is anybody home? He kept saying: Is anybody home? Is anybody home? I knew he was going to keep saying it until I got up and went in and got him up. I think that is the question Americans are asking us here in Congress: Is anybody home? A lot of people last weekend, when I was here, said: Keep speaking for us. Someone has to speak for us. These were not mobsters, they were not the right wing. They were Americans, moms and dads with kids in strollers, grandpas and grandmas, here from all over the country, of all political parties, who know enough to say we cannot keep spending and borrowing, and the more we spend, the more waste and fraud there is. All of us here seem to agree, especially at campaign time: Oh, we need to cut out the waste and fraud. But no matter what we bring up to cut, even if we pick the most egregious waste the Government Accountability Office comes up with every year and says these are the most wasteful and inefficient programs, we can put them on the floor of the Senate for a vote and we cannot cut them. Where do we begin, when all we seem to do, week after week, month after month, year after year, when all of us come in from all around the country and for every problem we see we have a new government program or an earmark or something that is supposed to fix it? Everything adds to the deficit. We never make those tough decisions about cutting anything. My amendment actually cuts something. It was not my invention. I have learned about it over countless television documentaries on the Congressman John Murtha Airport in Johnstown, PA. It is a small airport that over the last 20 years has received $200 million in taxpayer funds. This is an airport that only has 3 flights a day, an average of a total of 20 passengers a day. All of those three flights come to Washington and they are always mostly empty. The people who buy the tickets spend about the same amount per ticket as the taxpayers' subsidy for those tickets. Earlier in the year, after we passed the stimulus package, another $800,000 went to this airport to pave the alternate runway that is seldom used. After I brought up this amendment to discontinue funding-- and I want to make this clear; this is on this bill, the transportation bill, and it only discontinues funding for 1 year. It is not permanent. It does not discontinue any funding related to defense or the military, so the National Guard and others continue to use it. The Defense Department can spend whatever they want on this airport. It is just that the Department of Transportation cannot spend any more money to subsidize air traffic from this airport. It also does nothing to cut any safety funds for air traffic control. It is a couple of paragraphs that say enough is enough, this airport has received an inordinate amount of money. It has equipment it doesn't even use, millions for radar equipment that is not even staffed. Again, 3 flights a day, only to Washington, DC, with less than an average of 20 passengers a day. Most of the time there are more airport security people in this airport than there are passengers. This is not some partisan attack. In fact, if you will remember, the bridge to nowhere, which was a Republican project, was exposed by Republicans. It helped America see an example of waste and abuse. That is what this amendment is about. It is not an attack on any party or any State, it is just an example that has been brought to light by countless media sources all over the country of us wasting money--not just one time but year after year. If my amendment is not agreed to, another $1.5 million of subsidies will go to this one airport because their Congressman likes to fly back and forth from a local airport. Many Americans have to drive an hour or two to get to an airport. Folks in Johnstown could drive an hour to Pittsburgh Airport if the tickets were too expensive from Johnstown. This is not a particular attack on a Congressman or a State or community. It is a beginning. It is a demonstration that here in the Senate we get the message. We are listening. We are actually home and we are going to speak for those millions of Americans who say enough is enough, we cannot keep spending and borrowing and creating debt. For every dollar we spend here, about half of it now is borrowed. We are actually on our knees begging countries such as China to loan us some money so we can pay some of the debt that is coming due. Yet we keep creating cash for clunkers and ``Fannie Travel,'' which is a travel promotion agency we created a couple of weeks ago. Now we are passing a spending bill that is about 23 percent over what it was last year. At a time with down economics, Americans out of jobs, we are increasing spending that much. With this amendment we are saying we can make a tough decision. We can begin the process of starting to cut waste and fraud. But the reason so many people are going to vote against this amendment is there is a code here: I will support your spending for your State if you will support mine. I will not mess with the spending in your State if you won't mess with mine. We have been doing it for years, so we have been adding earmarks and projects in all of our States, supporting each other, and the budget and the spending get bigger and bigger and no one has the courage to say no, we have to stop. A few of us did on the bridge to nowhere. Thanks to millions of Americans saying you are right, we were able to stop that one project. But we are still spending like there is no tomorrow. I am asking my colleagues to agree we can cut one thing, one thing that is obviously wasteful and unfair. It is not fair to ask taxpayers all over the country to subsidize half of every ticket that is bought in a little airport in Johnstown, PA. They are not helping all the other Americans around the country or all the other small airports. Certainly small general aviation airports have gotten Federal funds but nothing to this degree. We are not interfering with the general aviation function of this airport at all or any military use. We are just going to stop for 1 year subsidizing the tickets and hopefully helping America to focus on part of our problem here. Part of correcting a problem is admitting you have one. I don't think we have done it yet in this Senate. My hope is on this vote a majority of the Senators will step up and say we do have a problem and this is one amendment where we can show we are beginning to turn it around. I encourage all my colleagues to vote for this amendment to cut funding for 1 year, at least cut these subsidies and at least demonstrate to America that somebody is home. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Thank you, Madam President. This amendment I hope is a beginning or maybe a turning point for the Senate where we identify wasteful spending and begin to make some progress toward cutting those things that we don't have to do here at the Federal level. I heard some comments about the amendment yesterday which I don't think accurately reflect what the bill does. We do nothing to cut any defense spending or defense use of this airport. We do nothing to cut any safety aspects such as air traffic control. It is simply for 1 year of this appropriations bill which stops the funding for additional subsidies to an airport that has received $200 million over the last 20 years and has as much subsidy per ticket as passengers pay. This has been the subject of documentaries on many media sources. We need to show America we are listening. Please support this amendment to cut these funds for 1 year.

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

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 to set aside the pending amendment and call up DeMint amendment No. 2410.

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes to talk about this amendment to the transportation-HUD bill we are on this week. I think if there is one expenditure by the Federal Government over the last 10 years that has drawn the attention of the American people more than the ``bridge to nowhere,'' it is probably the $200 million that has gone to the John Murtha Airport in Johnstown, PA. Americans are greatly concerned about the level of spending and debt, particularly the spending they consider wasteful or maybe even corrupt. There have been a number of media documentaries on the John Murtha Airport. I would like to talk about it a little bit today because my amendment would disallow the use of any funds in this bill to be used to administer any additional subsidies or grants to this particular airport. We disagree a lot on Federal spending; here and there are different things, different priorities we can debate about. But if there is any such thing as waste, it is this airport. I will tell you why. Over the last 10 years, or actually 20 years, this little airport in Johnstown, PA, has received about $200 million in Federal funds, $150 million of that was steered directly by Congressman Murtha himself, who uses the airport to come back and forth to Washington and for campaign stops. It only has three commercial flights a day to one destination and that is to Washington, DC. Only an average of about 20 passengers a day use this airport. The American taxpayers are on the hook for about $1.5 million a year in Federal subsidies. Every ticket to Washington and back is subsidized for about $100, which means the American taxpayers pay almost as much for the ticket as the passenger does, not just for one trip or two but continually year after year. In spite of the fact that major media outlets for a number of months have used this as an example of the fleecing of America, this continues to go on. In effect, when the stimulus bill was passed with all the promises of transparency and priority use, $800,000 of funds went to this airport to repave an alternate runway which is seldom, if ever, used. A lot of us in the Congress and the Senate have worked for years on small rural airports to try to get some money to extend a runway so corporate aircraft could come in, so maybe businesses could locate in areas where there was not commercial air traffic. Getting $100,000 for an airport is a major accomplishment sometimes, but $200 million for an airport that averages 20 passengers a day, that many times there are more people handling security at this airport than there are people going through the lines, is something we need to stop. If we cannot stop it, we cannot stop anything. Last Saturday in front of the Capitol, hundreds of thousands of people gathered. It was not a Republican gathering, I can tell you that because I was there. It was average Americans, moms and dads with their children, grandmas, grandpas, people who had never been involved in politics before who were very concerned about the level of spending, not just this administration. This is not a criticism of this administration. We are talking about the last 15 or 20 years. People are concerned about the level of spending and borrowing and debt, taxes and government takeovers in all areas of our economy. Health care is certainly something that brought it to a head, but these people are here concerned by the fact that they believe our country is on the edge of the cliff. They would like to see us in the Congress begin to move back away from the cliff and take some of the things that are not necessary here in Washington and begin to trim them back. But I think we can say here, if we cannot cut the funding for this little airport in Pennsylvania named after the Congressman who has helped to get $200 million, if we cannot stop funding it, stop subsidizing tickets, if we cannot look at the facts in this particular case and decide as a Congress to stop this, then there is nothing we can cut. Then there is no such thing as waste, and there is no such thing as fraud and corruption throughout this Federal Government. If we cannot agree, as Members of the Senate, to stop this--we are not taking away the $200 million they have already gotten, the $800,000 for the alternative runway which they have there, which did not need repaving in the first place, we are not closing down the airport or stopping any air travel there. We are just saying: Enough is enough. We have bought equipment there, radar equipment, spent millions of dollars that is not even being used. It is not being staffed. It is time we at least focus on one thing and say that we can begin the process of moving this country away from a cliff of economic and financial disaster. I hope on this bill, with this amendment, that we can, in a bipartisan way, agree this is one thing we do not have to have at the Federal level, that we can begin to shift priorities to those things we are supposed to do at the Federal level. It is certainly not to fund a pet project of one Congressman to the tune of $200 million. I encourage all my Senate colleagues, Republican and Democratic, to support an amendment that would simply disallow the use of any funds in this bill to be used to continue the administration of subsidies or grants to this airport. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, today marks the eighth anniversary of America's war on terror--the day we began to fight back. But 9/11 was not the day the war began. Radical Islamic terrorists were at war with the United States long before that harrowing morning 8 years ago. That is crucial to remember now as the terror and tragedy of that day recedes into the past. This war did not begin with the 9/11 attacks or when we sent troops to Afghanistan and it will not end when we defeat terrorists on any battlefield. Our goal cannot be merely to end one war but to win the war on terror. We will not win by trying to appease the grievances of our enemies. They do not hate our policies--they hate us, our freedoms, and our way of life. The 3,000 on 9/11 were the consequence of a broad bipartisan failure of American leadership to understand that hate. The consequences of forgetting now will be far worse. Our enemies' strategy is based on what they see as our short memory. As the terrifying images of 9/11 fade, our enemies believe we will lose our nerve and retreat back into the false sense of security they exploited with those four jetliners on 9/11. We cannot let that happen. If we lose our resolve and surrender our vigilance, the next attack might not be in airplanes but something far more devastating and lethal. Their plan depends on us forgetting, and so our challenge is to never forget. We have sacrificed in blood and treasure. Thousands of families have lost what can never be replaced. From the men of Flight 93 to the mountains of Afghanistan to the sands of Iraq, heroes have fallen. Today we mourn their loss, honor their memory, and recommit to finish the work they began, not just in foreign theaters of war but here at home. The challenge of 9/11 is not just to win a war but to prevent the next one. We will do that by remembering that our enemies are still hating and still planning. We must never forget. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I 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. DeMINT. Mr. President, if you were like me, you probably held a number of townhalls. I know a number of our colleagues over the holidays did. I saw a number of them on television and saw the many thousands of Americans who came to townhalls, as they did to mine, who were very concerned about the direction of our country. Frankly, in South Carolina, I had several thousand people come to different townhall meetings, all with a very similar point of view. They thought this government had gotten too big, was spending too much money, or taxing too much and taking over too much of our economy. A lot of people were very concerned, not just about health care. I cannot agree with the Senator. There are many things we need to do, but the last thing we should do is have this government take it over. There are many things we can do to make sure people get more insured. But the people who came to my townhalls and across the country in many other townhalls were not just concerned about one issue. They looked back over the last year, over a Republican and Democratic President, to see two failed stimulus bills, two bailouts--which many believe were unconstitutional--the proposed takeover of the energy and health care industries, and the actual takeover of banks and insurance companies and carmakers. People are fed up. The Federal Government is simply too big. The debts we are looking at now for ourselves and our children and our grandchildren are truly unsustainable. People do not know where the money is coming from. They wonder what we are thinking about. The amazing thing is, after what we saw over the break, the genuine outrage and concern by the American people, the very first item of business we are going to vote on in this Senate today after the August break is to vote to start another government program, to spend $400 million, to increase taxes, to get the Federal Government involved in another private sector business. What did we learn over our summer vacation? If we vote to pass this bill, we obviously learned very little. What I am talking about is the Travel Promotion Act. Many of you here in the gallery and around the country think I am probably making this up; that after what we saw across America we would actually have the nerve to bring up a bill that forms a new government-sponsored enterprise, a la Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it is going to be a government-sponsored enterprise that promotes travel and tourism in America. I guess we can call it Fannie Travel. Well, now, let me tell you a little bit about the idea because the idea is that travel and tourism in America is a very important industry, which it is. It is the No. 1 industry in South Carolina. It is actually one of the most prosperous. That is the main reason we do not want the Federal Government to get involved. But the idea is, that we are going to charge a $10 fee for everyone who comes to visit America in order to pay for this advertising program that will promote America to people all over the world. All these fees would be pooled, and they would be matched by some of the major tourism industries such as Disney, and we would have a government-sponsored enterprise that is promoting tourism. But they are saying it will not cost Americans anything because this is a tax on foreigners coming to this country. But I have a letter in my office from the European Union and other allies of this country that says this is violating the agreements we have with them, and if we do this they are going to add a similar fee to Americans visiting their country. We are going to start a war with some of our friends. It will ultimately end up costing Americans money. It will create another government entity. Folks, it is not a crisis. This is not one of those emergencies that we have to do ``this week.'' Why, when we have all of this debt, would we create another program with another tax that this Federal Government is going to run? Maybe it is Fannie Travel, maybe it is Cash for Tourism, but, folks, the problem with tourism in America is not that people do not know we are here. The problem is we have one of the most notoriously unfriendly customs and immigration services in the world. We also are one of the most difficult countries to get a visa for. I have a major international employer back in my home State who regularly needs to bring people from other parts of the world to train American workers. But they cannot get visas, so they send American workers to other countries to get the training they need because it is so much trouble to get the visas to get them here. Major industries have trade shows outside of this country because they cannot get the visas for customers coming in looking at our products. The problem is not that people do not know we are here, it is that the government involvement that is already involved with tourism and travel in our country is not doing a good job. When you have problems with the quality of your product, the last thing you do is raise your prices and increase advertising, which is what we are talking about doing with this bill. The first thing we need to do is make sure we have the most friendly and efficient customs system in the world and that people who want to come to our country can get a visa and a very quick background check so that we know the people who are coming here are safe. But we are not going to solve those problems with hundreds of millions of dollars of advertising from a new government agency that is run by major corporate sponsors in our country. Tourism is too important to turn over to the government. A lot of people around the country are concerned, as they look at what we are spending and the level of debt we are creating, that we are ignoring the constitutional principles we swore an oath to, and they are going to ask us when we vote on this bill: Where in the Constitution of the United States do we find the authority to run travel promotion? Major tourism companies such as Disney are not having trouble. In fact, I think Disney reported a $4 billion profit from last year, and they bought Marvel Comics for $4 billion. Certainly, our economy has put a strain on tourism, but the Federal Government is the last entity that needs to try to bail them out. We don't have any money. We are going to have to borrow money or tax someone to create this new government program. This is a debate that gets back to what does the Constitution allow us to do? One can't read the Constitution without seeing some very severe limits on what is expected of the Federal Government. Certainly, the bailout and cash for clunkers and this new travel and tourism agency they are starting has nothing to do with our constitutional functions. We have over $11 trillion in debt already. We are projecting to almost double that over the next 10 years with what we already have on the books. With Social Security and Medicare alone, the unfunded liability out many years is like $100 trillion. We have no idea where we are going to get all this money. How can we even discuss starting a new government entity when the ones we have started are at the heart of our economic problems. One can't understand our economy without seeing that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played a key role in bringing the worldwide economy to its knees. We don't have to look back but 1 month to see what the last government program we created in cash for clunkers did. It was going to be a $1 billion, 6- month promotion to sell a lot of cars. We were out of money in 1 week, and we voted to pass another $2 billion. A couple weeks later, they canceled the program. We can't run the travel and promotion industry from Washington, DC. I have to draw a very difficult conclusion. Any of my fellow Senators who vote for this either don't understand the severity of our economic and fiscal problems or they don't care. They certainly didn't hear the millions of Americans speaking over the August break and telling us they want us to get back to the business of a constitutional form of government and stop trying to win votes by bringing home the bacon-- wasteful spending, earmarks, and new government programs, all the false, empty promises based on government solutions. I encourage colleagues, let us get the rest of the year started off in a reasonable way. Let's talk about how to fix health care. Let's talk about how to create jobs. For heaven's sake, let's not create a new government program as the first vote we take in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I do want to talk about the President's nominee to the Supreme Court, but first I wish to give a couple of comments in response to the Senator about health care because if the record be known to Americans, the preponderance of health reform legislation that has been presented over the last 5 years in the Senate has come from Republicans. The Democrats have consistently blocked any reform that would make health insurance more affordable and available to Americans. Their goal appears to be not patient-centered care but government-controlled care. If we look back a few years, the President, along with all the Democrats, voted against interstate competition among insurance companies. It is hard to say they are not on the side of insurance companies when they vote to prevent a national market, a national competitive market that people all over the country could buy policies that are more affordable and perhaps match their needs much better than the ones they can get in their own States. Today Americans can only buy health insurance in the States where they live. That means a few insurance companies can dominate the market. This is something we have tried to change, we have introduced, and the President has voted against it. We have also proposed tax fairness for Americans who do not get their health insurance at work. The other side seldom discusses the fact that when you get your insurance at work, you get pretty big tax breaks. The companies that provide that health insurance do not have to pay taxes on it. They can deduct it. It is a business expense. And the employees do not have to pay income tax on the benefits. It is an equivalent benefit over $3,000. The bills we Republicans have introduced will give health care vouchers to every American. Every family would get $5,000 a year to buy health insurance if they do not get their health insurance at work. Every individual would get $2,000. In addition, there would be some lawsuit abuse reform and some block grants to States to make sure people who are uninsurable, who have preexisting conditions, can buy affordable insurance. The Heritage Foundation says one of the Republican plans would have 22 million Americans insured within 5 years. They are plans that work. But, unfortunately, the other side will not even discuss plans that do not have more government control involved with them. What we can do is make what is working work better. We do not need to replace it with what is not working. One of the reasons health insurance is more expensive today--a third more expensive--is that the government programs of Medicare and Medicaid do not pay their fair share, and those costs are shifted on to employers and individuals who have private insurance. We do not need to expand the part that is broken in health care. We certainly do not need to expand a cash-for-clunkers type of health care system for America. I am here today to talk about the President's nominee to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor. I commend my Republican colleagues, particularly Senator Jeff Sessions, for conducting a very respectful and civil hearing process for the nominee. This is something we have not seen in a number of years here. They were respectful toward her. Even those who disagree with her judicial philosophy showed courtesy and respect during the hearings, and it is something I very much appreciate. Our goal through this process has not been to block this nomination and to stop her from going to the Supreme Court. The votes have never been there to do that. What we have been trying to show is a pattern by the Obama administration and the Democratic majority of moving toward more and more government control in all areas of our lives. We see it in the stimulus plan, that instead of leaving money in the private sector, we take it away and spend it on programs such as turtle tunnels and other kinds of wasteful spending all across the country--government spending. We are trying to manage the private economy. We see it in cash for clunkers where we create an economic earmark for one sliver of our economy. At the same time, in this health care legislation, we are talking about adding taxes to the small businesses that create 70 percent of the jobs in this country. We are benefiting a few at the expense of many. This is economic central planning. It is a concept that has failed throughout history. Yet we are trying again. What we see in the President's nominee to the Supreme Court is this belief that our Constitution is inadequate, that we need to have judges on our courts, Justices on the Supreme Court, who add to it. The President has said that our Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It tells the government what it cannot do, but it does not tell us what we have to do. The whole point of the Constitution is to limit what we can do. But the President considers it inadequate, and he is nominating people to the courts who will be activists, who will expand what the Federal Government does and make arbitrary decisions rather than those based on the Constitution. Unfortunately, I do rise today in opposition to the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. I met with her personally, and I watched the hearings. I believe she is a very smart and gracious person with an inspiring personal story. But I also found her evasive and contradictory in her answers. On several issues ranging from judicial temperament to her infamous ``wise Latina'' speeches, Judge Sotomayor experienced what we call confirmation conversion on many of her issues and simply walked away from a lot of her past statements and positions. Now seeing her willingness to tell us what we want to hear, neither her testimony nor her long record on the judicial bench can give the American people any confidence that she will rule according to the clear language and intent of the Constitution. Let me talk for a second about the Constitution versus precedent. I am very concerned with Judge Sotomayor's repeated efforts to deflect questions by stating she relied on precedent to guide her decisions. I understand circuit court judges are guided and even bound by Supreme Court precedent, but precedent is not the same thing as the Constitution, particularly on the Supreme Court. A judicial confirmation process that puts the constitutional interpretation outside the bounds of discussion is a waste of time. On issue after issue during her hearings, Judge Sotomayor, rather than giving her own opinion, simply offered the opinions of many other judges. We have no idea what she thinks. In one sense, this is fitting. The Congress routinely passes legislation that none of us reads or understands. So perhaps it is consistent for us to nominate and confirm a Justice when we do not understand what she actually believes. Judge Sotomayor may be very learned in constitutional law, but we rarely heard her actually mention the Constitution itself. This is a big problem for our judiciary and our system of checks and balances. In 1825, Thomas Jefferson said that the Federal judiciary was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what is law has allowed it to slyly, and without alarm, sap away the foundations of the Constitution. What concerns me, as Jefferson observed, is that there are many confusing and contradictory precedents that can be used by judges to justify whatever decision they want to make. Without the Constitution as the fixed standard, court decisions become very arbitrary, and we are ruled by the opinions of Justices rather than the rule of law. When the law is unmoored from the Constitution, it becomes like the old schoolroom game of telephone. Some may remember it. One student says something to her neighbor and on and on across the room until the secret reaches the other side of the class. What do you know--the final message no longer even resembles the original. That is how precedent has worked in our court system. Every time the Supreme Court bases a decision on a precedent rather than on the underlying Constitution, the original intent of the Founders is lost and becomes distorted. There is nothing stopping a determined judge from finding a precedent that suits whatever they want to decide in any case before the Court. Nor apparently is there anything that will stop Judge Sotomayor from unmooring her decisions, not only from the Constitution but from precedent itself, as she did in the Ricci racial discrimination case and with regard to the fundamental right of citizens to own firearms. In the Ricci case, she claimed she was following precedent, but her own colleagues on the circuit court refuted her claim. On the second amendment, she disregarded the Supreme Court's Heller decision and still refuses to acknowledge the right to bear arms for every American, that it is a fundamental right. Decisions such as these, understandably, undermine the credibility of our judicial system. Americans are led to suspect that some judges are more interested in their particular outcomes rather than objectivity. Let me conclude. Judge Sotomayor is obviously a talented jurist, but I believe her when she says that she chooses her words very carefully. And her words, both in her testimony and throughout her career, undermine her claims to objective and impartial justice. I realize my view is the minority view here, and if Judge Sotomayor is confirmed, she will have my best wishes on a long and distinguished career. Given the available evidence, however, I cannot support her confirmation, nor the judicial philosophy that she will carry with her to the Supreme Court. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.