Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, Senator Graham joins me today to congratulate the men and women of the 437th Airlift Wing stationed at Charleston Air Force Base, SC, for their outstanding service in defending our Nation and for their great achievements at the Air Force's Air Mobility Command Rodeo Competition. It is been 8 years since the attacks of 9/11, and the record of continuous operations for the 437th is an inspiration to us all. Shortly after the attacks, Charleston leapt into action, dropping humanitarian aid into Afghanistan only hours after bombers began pounding al-Qaida and Taliban insurgents. Later, when we put boots on the ground, the 437th led the first-ever C-17 combat dirt landing in the barren wilderness of Afghanistan to establish a critical forward operating base. Since then, Team Charleston has led the airlift of MRAPS to protect our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and performed some of the largest training exercises in Air Mobility Command. Over the years, they have delivered a staggering 1.3 billion pounds of cargo to support our troops and provide relief for friends and allies around the world. However, when the 437th is not saving lives and delivering freedom, they are winning awards and bringing home trophies. We are especially proud of the 437th's accomplishments at the 2009 Air Mobility Command Rodeo Competition. The 437th competed with more than 100 teams and 2,500 people from the United States Air Force and allied nations. They led the C-17 aircrew competition and finished first in two out of three competitions, earning trophies for ``Best C-17 Air Refueling Crew'' and ``Best Short Field Landing Crew.'' Furthermore, Team Charleston continued their distinguished record of world-class maintenance and added ``Best C-17 Preflight Team'' to their long list of awards. These are impressive achievements that bring great credit upon the 437th. We recognize the outstanding achievements of Rodeo team members CPTs Robert Lowe, Joseph Beal and Jonathan Magill; MSgt Ricky Clark; Technical Sergeants Harold Bordeaux, Paul Eaton, and Richard Pate; SSgts Jessy Martin, Brian Parmerter, Hector Schunior, Nicholas White, John Paull, and Veronica Bankey; Senior Airmen Dennis Adams and Joshua Ramalia; and Airman First Class Daniel Jones. I know the Wing is especially proud of the Rodeo team, but on behalf of the people in Charleston, the State of South Carolina, and our great country, Senator Graham and I salute the outstanding work of the 437th. We are amazed by their stories and humbled by the immense burdens they have shouldered. Their dedication, and their families' sacrifices are an inspiration, and our country owes them a debt of gratitude for their patriotic service.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I thank my colleague. I would like to make a few comments. I am not going to offer an amendment at this time. Mr. President, sometimes in this place it is hard to extract the truth from the words. I, frankly, don't understand the opposition to using money for transportation that has already been allocated to transportation. I think we have had enough of saying we need to spend more money and borrow more money because the Bush administration spent too much and borrowed too much. This is a bipartisan problem. Hopefully, we will have a bipartisan solution. What is being proposed today is we need more money for highways. The highway trust fund is running out of money. We need more money to pay unemployment benefits. They are running out of money. We would like more money for FHA loans. We have to decide do we want to use money that is already designated for purposes of our economy and helping people who don't have jobs or do we want to borrow more money and spend more money and add more money to our debt? I don't think this situation is a good reason to say: Hey, we were bad in the past, so let's continue those practices. We are not suggesting with these amendments that we should stop the stimulus plan. We are saying we should use it for the same purposes it was set up for. Let's use it to build roads and bridges and create jobs. Let's use it to make sure those who are unemployed get their benefits. Let's use it to restimulate our housing market.

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Chair for all the time to speak, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I will return to the issue of health care in America, the reform of our health care system, and how we help Americans find the health insurance that is affordable to every family. It is important, as we talk about this, that we get the facts out on the table. I am glad to see this has become an issue that is front and center. I know the President called for a press conference tonight to talk about his vision of health care. I want to set the record straight on a number of things that have been said that I think are politically motivated and, obviously, don't represent the truth. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including the President, have talked about Republicans representing the status quo on behalf of big special interests, and they have accused us of representing the big insurance companies, when, in fact, the voting record in the Senate has proved the exact opposite. When the President was in the Senate, and when we, as Republicans, proposed health care reform--which we did many times while the President was a Senator--the President and my Democratic colleagues voted with the big insurance companies. We had one proposal that would allow small businesses to come together to buy health insurance for their employees at a lower price. The big insurance companies opposed that, but the Democrats voted with the big insurance companies and against the reform proposals. I put forth a proposal that would have allowed individuals in this country to shop for their health insurance in any State in the country, just like other products and services, to have a competitive national market, which so many on the other side have called for. The big insurance companies that have State-by-State monopolies opposed that bill. Senator Barack Obama and the Democrats voted with the big insurance companies and against Americans' ability to buy health insurance anywhere in the country. Republicans are not standing with special interests. Look at the proposals that have been put on the table in the House and Senate by the Democrats, which the President will be advocating when he speaks tonight. Let's see what party is representing special interests. First of all, the abortion industry, Planned Parenthood, and other organizations that make their money performing abortions--their interests are clearly represented in this bill. This proposal the President is advocating would require that health insurance plans cover elective abortions in this country, which means taxpayers who are morally opposed to abortion will be forced to subsidize insurance plans that pay for abortion. I ask my colleagues, who is representing special interests? Who is representing the abortion industry in this debate? What about who loses their health care coverage in these new plans that have been proposed? The independent Lewin Group has looked at these proposed plans by my Democratic colleagues in the House and Senate, and they concluded that 80 million Americans who have health insurance that they now like will lose it under this current proposal. But who is protected? Who would not lose their health insurance? It is union members who are protected. Do we think that has anything to do with politics--that the average American will lose their health insurance but the unions that support the Democratic Party are protected? Who is standing up for special interests in this health care debate? Let's talk about the plaintiffs' attorneys. One of the biggest problems in health care today is what doctors call defensive medicine-- running all kinds of unnecessary tests so they avoid all these expensive lawsuits. We have talked for years about reforming the health care system to eliminate these wasteful, frivolous lawsuits that cost so much money, and every doctor and hospital has to have huge liability policies for the cost of the lawsuits that come every year. You would think a health care reform proposal would have some lawsuit abuse reform in it. But who is protected? What special interests are protected in this health care proposal? The plaintiffs' attorneys. There is absolutely no tort reform, no reform of abusive lawsuits in this plan. So I ask my colleagues: Who is representing the special interests here--the big insurance companies, the abortion industry, the unions, the plaintiff's attorney? All of those are represented and protected in this so-called health reform legislation that does nothing to help individuals access affordable personal policies for themselves. When the President was in the Senate, I personally every year proposed major health care reform. I proposed that individuals who do not get their insurance at work at least get to deduct the cost of that insurance from their taxes, as we let businesses do. Barack Obama voted against that, and so did my Democratic colleagues. I proposed that individuals be allowed to buy health insurance anywhere in the country so that it would be more affordable, more competitive. Barack Obama voted against that, and so did my Democratic colleagues. Republicans proposed small businesses come together and buy health care less expensively so they could provide more health insurance to their employees. Barack Obama voted against that, and so did my Democratic colleagues. I ask you: Which party is standing for the status quo of trying to keep things the same? Real health care reform has been proposed in the Senate many times by Republicans. But the truth is, the Democrats do not want individual Americans to have access to affordable health insurance. What they want is a government takeover of health care. The President has made that clear by his own voting record. As he holds his press conference tonight, I am sure the crowd will be loaded with friendly reporters, but there are a few questions I would like him to answer. If the major provisions in this health care bill he is promoting do not take effect until 2013, which they don't, why this mad rush to pass a bill that is over 1,000 pages that no one in this body has read? Why the mad rush to pass it before we go home for the August break? I can answer it for him. Because if Americans find out what is in it, they are not going to support it. I have a second question: You said your health care bill will cut costs and not increase the deficit. But the independent analysis of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office contradicts those claims, saying it will raise costs and increase the deficit by $240 billion. The policy does not support the promise. A third question: The President has repeatedly said that the health care bill will allow Americans who like their current plans to keep them. But as I said, an independent expert group, the Lewin Group, has analyzed this legislation and concluded that it will force over 80 million Americans to lose the health insurance they have today. Question No. 4: The President said the other day when he was speaking at Children's Hospital that opponents of the plan are content to perpetuate the status quo. How does that compare with your record, Mr. President, when you were in the Senate? What health reform did you propose? Why did you vote against every health reform proposal that could have increased access to affordable health insurance for all Americans? And just a yes-or-no question: Will you guarantee that pro-life Americans under your plan will not be forced to subsidize elective abortions? I hope the President will answer some of these questions for the American people because I am convinced that if Americans know the truth about this legislation, they will conclude this is not about getting them affordable health insurance or access to quality health care. This is a continuation of this power grab that is going on in Washington. This spending spree, this proposal for more and more taxes, is a power grab for the government to take over yet another industry, the health care industry in America. Health care is the most personal and private service we have for ourselves and our families. Why would we want to turn that over to government to make the decisions for us?

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank you for your indulgence. I encourage my colleagues to read any bill we vote on before the August break.

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 speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few minutes about health care and the need for health care reform in the country today. I think most Americans would agree we need to do everything we can to make affordable health insurance available to every American and, hopefully, that is what this health reform debate will be about. Unfortunately, we are seeing a pattern develop here that has been going on all year--since the President took office--that has many Americans alarmed at the rapid pace we are spending and borrowing, imposing new taxes, and taking over various aspects of the American economy. I know a lot of Americans are alarmed and some are outraged. More than any other comment, I am hearing Americans say: Why don't you slow down and read the bills before you continue the expansion of government. Now we are talking about health care, and we see that same pattern of crisis and rush and it ``has to be done today, hair's on fire'' type of mentality here in Washington so that we almost have to call this a ``son of stimulus'' health care bill. Because certainly the last time the President tried to ram a massive bill through Congress before we had a chance to read it, we ended up with this colossal stimulus failure that has actually resulted in the loss of jobs in America and a burden of debt on our children that is almost unimaginable. It makes no sense for us to follow that same pattern with health care--nearly 20 percent of our economy--to have a government takeover with a bill we haven't even completely seen yet, that is supposed to be passed in the next 2 weeks, even though the bill wouldn't take effect until 2013. What is the rush? The whole purpose of the Senate is to be the place where the legislation comes to cool down, where we deliberate, we look at the details. The President himself has admitted he is not aware of the details of the bill he is out selling every day. We do have serious problems in health care that we need to fix. The unfortunate thing is I have no confidence that the President actually wants to make health insurance affordable and available to all Americans because when he was in the Senate, Republicans proposed a number of alternatives that would have done that. Yet in every case-- every opportunity he had to make health insurance more available and affordable to Americans--he voted no. Let's review some of them, because I think we have to recognize that the point of this health care debate is not to make sure every American is insured, but to make sure the government is running our health care system. The most personal and private part of our lives they are talking about turning over to bureaucrats at the Federal level. This makes no sense. What we could do is be fair to those who don't get their health insurance at work. If people get their health insurance at work, as we do here in Congress, your employer can deduct the cost of it and the employee is exempt from paying taxes on those benefits. That is equivalent to about a $5,000 a year benefit to families who get their health care or health insurance at work. Why can't we offer that same fairness to Americans who don't get their health insurance at work? It is something I actually proposed here in the Senate while President Obama was a Senator, that we would give fair tax treatment; at least let them deduct it from their taxes. He voted no, as did I believe every Democrat, and they killed the bill in the House. This was basic fairness to make health insurance a little more affordable to people who didn't get it at work. The President voted no. We hear a lot of talk about how we need a government plan to make the private plans more competitive. Why not make all the insurance companies compete with insurance companies all over the country instead of what we do now? A lot of Americans don't know that the reason we don't have a competitive private health insurance market is that the Federal Government makes it impossible. You have to buy your health insurance in the State where you live, so a few insurance companies basically have monopolies in every State of the country. What if someone such as myself who lived in South Carolina could look all across the country, find a policy I wanted at a better price, and buy it? Why can't we do that? Well, I proposed we do that. We introduced it on the Senate floor. It would have created a competitive health insurance market and allowed people to buy all over the country. Barack Obama voted no, as did all of the Democrats, to kill the bill. Now they are talking about: Well, we need a government option to create some competition, to have a real competitive market. He voted against it. What about allowing Americans who put money in a health savings account, or their employer puts it in there for them--their own money-- why not let them use that money to pay for a health insurance premium if they don't get it at work? It sounded like a good idea to me, to make it a little bit easier, a little more affordable to have your own health insurance, so I proposed that bill here in the Senate. Barack Obama voted no, as did all of the Democrats, and they killed the bill. What about the idea of allowing a lot of small employers--I was a small businessman for years. It was hard to buy health insurance as a small employer, but I did. It cost me a lot of money, a lot more than the big employers. But what about allowing a lot of small employers to come together and form associations and buy health insurance so they could offer it to their employees less expensively? Well, it is a good idea that was offered right here on the floor of the Senate by Republicans. Barack Obama voted no, as did most of the Democrats, and they killed the bill. There is a long list here I could go through, but every single bill, every single health reform idea that has been proposed here, the President, when he was in the Senate, voted against. Everything that would have made health insurance available and affordable to the average American who doesn't get their insurance at work was voted no by this President. Now he is saying, We need the government to take it over because it is not working. The reason it is not working is we won't let it work. The part of health insurance, the health care system that works the best today is when you have your own health insurance and you pick your own doctor and you and your doctor decide what kind of health care you are going to get. It is not a perfect system, and insurance companies have a lot of work to do to make things work better because I have to argue with them a lot myself. But the part of the health care system that doesn't work is the part that the government runs, Medicaid and Medicare, the SCHIP and TRICARE. Some of the people who get those benefits such as our seniors say Medicare works fine, but, unfortunately, doctors don't want to see them coming because Medicare and Medicaid don't cover the cost of even seeing a patient. So many physicians are closing their practices to our seniors because they have government health insurance. Government health care does not pay enough for the physician and the hospital to see the patient, so they shift the cost over to the private market. The worst part of all of these government plans is they are trillions of dollars in debt--debt that our children are going to have to pay back. These programs are broke. Yet they want to expand these programs. They want to take the part of health care that is not working and essentially force it on every American. They want every American to have a Medicaid plan where doctors don't want to see us coming because we are not paying enough of their costs. As I look at this whole health care reform debate--and I am glad to see the President out taking shots at me for saying we have to stop him on this, because we have been on a rampage since he took office, passing one government program after another, expanding spending and debt at levels we have never imagined in this country. It is time to slow down and take stock of where we are. Other countries that have to lend us money to keep us going are beginning to wonder, Can we pay our debts? We have doubled our money supply by the Federal Reserve, and that means big inflation, higher interest rates. Yet we are moving ahead with this health care plan that is going to expand our debt as a nation, raise taxes on small businesses that create the jobs. It looks as if we are going to penalize Americans who don't decide to buy health insurance, and we are moving again toward a government program that we know won't work. There is not one Federal program that has worked as advertised, that has worked to the budget we said it would be to. This week we have had announcements of what we have already passed as far as stimulus over the last year is going to mean trillions of dollars-- trillions of dollars--we are going to have to borrow and that our children are going to have to pay back. I appeal to my colleagues: We don't need to rush through a bill in the next 2 weeks before we go on our August break that affects one- fifth--20 percent--of our total economy, that gets the government to effectively take over the most personal and private service that we ask for as Americans. We don't need to pass a bill such as that, that we won't even have time to read. What the President and I think a lot of the proponents of this bill are afraid of is if we are able to go home on the August break and we take this bill and we put it on the Internet where people can read it, and radio talk shows and bloggers all around the country are able to tell the American people what this bill is and what it will do, and get past this utopian rhetoric that we are hearing from the President and look at the nuts and bolts, because everything he is saying this bill is going to do the Congressional Budget Office and other experts are saying, No, it isn't going to work that way. It isn't going to save us money, it is going to raise our taxes, it is going to cost jobs in America, and it isn't going to fix health care. We need to go back to the basics, including some of what I have mentioned already, that would reform health care and make private health insurance work better, make it more affordable, and get it into the hands of more Americans. Why should we give up on freedom and move to a government plan when we haven't even given freedom a chance to work in health care? I know the government can't run health care and I don't want them running my plan. One of the best ideas I have heard in this debate is whatever we pass, Congressmen and Senators ought to have to take that health plan. I am going to have an amendment to that effect if they try to get this on the floor before August. But I appeal to my colleagues: Let's listen to the American people. Let's stop this rampage toward bigger and bigger government. Let's take our time and look at this bill and, for once, do something right. Our health depends on it. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes and Senator Hutchison to follow me.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I know we are debating the Defense Authorization bill and a myriad of other things we are sticking into the bill. Nationally, Americans are focused on health care and what the President and the majority are trying to push through in a mad rush that we seem to have been in all year long under this guise of crisis. It is pretty amazing in that the legislation we are talking about would not take effect for several years, so it is incredible we are being told we need to pass this in the next couple of weeks before we go home in August. The last time the President made grand promises and demanded passage of a bill before it could be reviewed or even read, we ended up with the colossal stimulus failure and unemployment near 10 percent. Now we are being told they misread the economy. But we were urged to pass this within a day or two because we had to do it in order to keep unemployment below 8 percent. Now the President wants Americans to trust him again but he cannot back up the utopian promises he is making about a government takeover of health care. He insists his health care plan will not add to our Nation's deficit, despite the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office saying exactly the opposite. Today we learned that the President is refusing to release a critical report on the state of our economy which contains facts essential to this debate. What is he hiding? If the actual legislation came close to matching the President's rhetoric, he would have no problem passing this bill, with huge Democratic majorities in both Chambers. But Americans are not being fooled and we are discovering the truth about his plan, which includes rationed care, trillions in new costs and high taxes, and penalties which will destroy jobs, and even government- funded abortion. In addition, we are looking at a deficit increased by hundreds of billions of dollars and billions in new taxes on small businesses. It could destroy over 4 million more jobs, according to a model by the President's own chief economic adviser, and it could force 114 million Americans to lose their health care, according to a nonpartisan group. Let's be clear. There is no one in this debate advocating that we do nothing, despite the President's constant straw man arguments. Republicans have offered comprehensive health care reform solutions that cover millions of the uninsured without exploding costs, raising taxes, and rationing care. Since I have been in Congress, we have introduced a number of proposals that would help the uninsured buy their own policies. We have introduced bills that would allow them to deduct it from their taxes just as businesses do, but our Democratic colleagues have killed it. We have introduced legislation that would allow Americans to buy health insurance anywhere in the country, to make it more competitive and more affordable, but the Democrats have killed it. We have introduced legislation that would allow Americans to use money in their health savings accounts to pay for an insurance premium, but the Democrats have killed it. We have introduced legislation that would stop all these frivolous and wasteful lawsuits that cause the cost of medicine to go up, but the Democrats have killed it. We have introduced association health plans that would allow small businesses to come together so they could buy policies less expensively, but the Democrats have killed it. Now they want to come back and say the government needs to take over health care. It makes absolutely no sense at all. We can give every American access to affordable health insurance plans if we get out of the way and allow the market to work. This is no time to rush into another government takeover of another part of the American economy, spending billions of dollars we do not have and raising taxes on the small businesses that create jobs. There are good solutions. I introduced one a couple of weeks ago that would give people fair treatment. If you do not get your insurance at work or you are unemployed, we will give you $5,000 a year to buy health insurance. That is fair treatment. It is the same basic benefit we give people who get insurance at work, good insurance that does not cost any more money. I would encourage the President to stop the rhetoric, let us take some time for debate, let's reform health care in a way that makes it possible for every American to have a health insurance plan they can afford and own and keep. We do not need the government to take it over. I yield for the Senator from Texas.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I have to say there have been some amazing proposals coming out of the House and the Senate in the last few weeks in some fairly desperate economic times, when job loss is at some of its highest rates in years, when borrowing and spending have gone through the roof. It is pretty amazing that we have come out with proposals, such as cap and trade, that are going to add huge taxes on electricity and other energy when we should be doing all we can to create more energy in our country and to lower the cost, if possible, for Americans. It is pretty amazing to me that we would consider adding taxes and cost onto the cost of living when so many are out of work and we are in very difficult economic times. Now we see this health care proposal that the Congressional Budget Office says is going to hurt our economy, it is going to insure very few uninsured people, and it will cost trillions of dollars. Again, at a time when we are having difficulty paying the interest on the debt we already owe, we have proposed this massive expansion of government. Here we are today supposedly discussing funding for our whole defense system in our country, the Defense authorization bill, and the majority has decided to add on to that bill hate crimes legislation. They apparently have scheduled a vote at 1 a.m. tomorrow morning for hate crimes legislation in the middle of a defense authorization debate which should be bipartisan, should be focused on the defense of our country, a clear constitutional responsibility. But we are spending the day waiting for a cloture vote at 1 a.m. tomorrow morning on hate crimes. There are many practical problems with this hate crimes amendment they are trying to force us to attach to the Defense authorization bill. The broad language will unnecessarily extend Federal law enforcement beyond its constitutional bounds, it will undermine the effectiveness and confidence of local law enforcement, and it will create conditions for arbitrary and politicized prosecution of certain cases. But instead of the practical problems, I want to focus on basic, fundamental problems with Federal hate crimes legislation. The rule of law requires that we oppose this amendment on principle. Justice is blind, and under the rule of law justice must be blind-- blind to the superficial circumstances of the victims and the defendants. The law says crime must be investigated and punished. There is no evidence to suggest that crimes defined by this amendment as hate crimes are not being prosecuted today. This amendment is, therefore, unnecessary as a matter of criminal law. There is no need, or even any law enforcement benefit, to create a special class for crimes based on--and I quote from the amendment-- ``the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim.'' Indeed, as a matter of justice, this amendment is patently offensive. It is based on the premise that violence committed against certain kinds of victims is worse and more in need of Federal intervention and swift justice than if it were committed against someone else. I am sure most parents of a minority, homosexual, or female victim would appreciate the extra concern, but that also implies that certain crimes are better, for lack of a better word. Where does that leave the vast majority of victims' families who, because of the whims of political correctness, are not entitled under this amendment to special status and attention? How can a victim's perceived status or the perpetrator's perceived opinions possibly determine the severity of the crime? The 14th amendment explicitly guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws. This amendment creates a special class of victims whose protection of the laws will be, in Orwell's phrase, more equal than others, and if some are more equal, others will be less equal; that is, this amendment will create the very problem it purports to solve. Let's talk about thought crimes for a minute. This amendment will also move our Nation a dangerous step closer to another Orwellian concept--thought crime. This legislation essentially makes certain ideas criminal in that those ideas involved in a crime make that 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 regime where so-called human rights commissions operating outside the law prosecute citizens for espousing opinions with which the commissioners disagree. This concern is only heightened by the last section of this hate crimes amendment which says it does not allow ``prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of . . . religious . . . beliefs.'' Let me repeat that because we are being told this would not affect anyone expressing a religious opinion or value judgment: Prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of religious beliefs . . . Two questions come to mind: First, if the hate crimes amendment is really just about law enforcement, why should it even need a restatement of the self-evident fact that religious expression is constitutionally protected? And second, why include the adverb ``solely'' if not to allow for the potential prosecution of people's religious speech so long as it is part of a broader prosecution of the accused hater? Today, only actions are crimes. If we pass this legislation, opinions will become crimes. What is to stop us from following the lead of European countries and American college campuses where certain speech is criminalized? Can priests, pastors, and rabbis be sure their preaching will not be prosecuted? In Canada, for instance, Pastor Stephen Boissoin was so prosecuted by Alberta's Human Rights Commission for publishing letters critical of homosexuality, a biblical concept. Or will this amendment serve as a warning to people not to speak out too loudly about their religious views lest the Federal law enforcement come knocking at their door? What about the unintended consequences, such as pedophiles and sex offenders claiming protected status as disabled under this legislation? There is no such thing as a criminal thought, only criminal acts. Once we endorse thought crimes, where will we draw the line? And more importantly, who will draw the line? Let me talk a little bit about equality and how it relates to this bill. If my own children were attacked in a violent crime, justice-- true justice--demands that their attackers be pursued no more or less than the attackers of any other children. We also say we want a colorblind society--even Judge Sotomayor. But we cannot have a colorblind society if we continue to write color- conscious laws. Our culture cannot expect to treat people equally if the law, if the ruling class treats citizens not according to the content of their character but according to their race, sex, ethnicity, or gender identity. As we wait through the night to vote on this hate crimes bill, I encourage my colleagues, first of all, to set this aside and let's focus on it separately, if it needs to be focused on. It is not part of the Defense authorization bill. But they are holding the Defense authorization bill hostage to other things, much like we did a few weeks ago when we were trying to pass a defense appropriations bill and they attached a $100 billion giveaway to the International Monetary Fund. In order to vote for the support of our troops, we had to vote to give away another $100 billion from American taxpayers. This hate crimes legislation makes no sense. It violates all the principles of equal justice under the law. It makes what we think and what we believe a crime, rather than what we do. It asks judges and juries to determine what we were thinking when we were committing a crime, instead of trying to decide what we really did. This is not what is carved above the Supreme Court, which says ``equal justice under the law.'' It violates all the principles we have talked about as far as blind justice, that a judge does not look at who is in front of him but considers the facts of the case. Hate crimes violate everything that is essentially American and fair and equal about a justice system. It makes no sense to bring it up at all. It makes even less sense to bring it up under the Defense authorization bill. I encourage my colleagues, particularly the majority, to withdraw this amendment and let us move ahead with the debate of the defense of our country. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Andrew Julson of my staff be given the privilege of the floor throughout the duration of the debate on the Department of Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly about an amendment that will be up second, I believe, this morning. It is about our southern border in this United States. I think we have made some propositions to the American people to secure our southern border. We have passed laws that are currently not being followed, and I think we see the result of that in Mexico as well as in the United States. Our southern border has become a battleground. It is a place not only where illegal immigrants and workers come into our country, but drug trafficking and weapons trafficking are real security issues. We are destabilizing Mexico with all that is going on because we refuse to carry out our promise to the American people to secure that border. We cannot have security in the United States unless we have a secure border. We passed a law that says we have to have 700 miles of reinforced, double-layer fencing along the southern border of the United States. Of the 700 miles, 370 miles were required to be built by December 31 of last year, and we have not met that requirement. In fact, there are only 330 miles of the single-layered fencing and only 34 miles of the double-layered fencing that was required by law to be built. So far they claim 661 miles of fencing are completed, but that includes both vehicle barriers and single-layered fencing. They continue to speak of virtual fencing, which is basically just detectors if someone is going across. All the evidence is that doesn't work well, if at all. The point of my amendment is to keep our promise to the American people. Let's move ahead with securing the border. I don't like a fence. I don't like the way a fence looks. But in this world today, where we are threatened in many ways, it is critically important that we are able to determine who comes and goes and what comes and goes on the borders of the United States. My amendment does two things. It requires that 700 miles of physical pedestrian fencing be completed, and it sets a deadline of December 31, 2010. We can do this if we just make that commitment and fund it in this bill. A physical fence is effective, compared to the untested hundreds of millions of dollars of virtual fencing they are trying to substitute, even though we passed a law that says we need to secure the borders. I remind my colleagues we made a promise to the American people. We passed a law. This country is based on the rule of law, and we need to follow it in the Congress. We need to fund this and set a deadline so this promise will be fulfilled. I encourage all my colleagues to vote for the DeMint amendment this morning. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, current law promises the American people that we will secure our southern borders with 700 miles of pedestrian fence. Obviously, we have seen violence increase and drug trafficking and weapons trafficking. We have destabilized the Mexican government because of our inability to carry out that promise. At this point there are only 34 miles of double-layered pedestrian fences as promised in our laws. We are supposed to have 700 miles. My amendment simply enforces current law and sets a deadline that we finish a pedestrian fence as required by law, finish the fence that is required by law by the end of next year. This is a promise we should keep to the American people. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, what we are doing is not working. This amendment is designed to add some force and funding to current law. I encourage my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Thune, for pointing out, again, the disastrous course we are on as a nation with the level of spending, borrowing, and debt we are creating and the amount of government intrusion into so many areas of our economy that have alarmed so many Americans. I appreciate the Senator bringing up that issue today. Amendment No. 1399 to Amendment No. 1373 I rise today to express my grave concerns about the administration's response to the situation in Honduras. There are few absolutes in the arena of diplomacy and international affairs. As circumstances and regimes change, so do our interests and allegiances. But one principle that should stand as a bedrock constant is this: a friend of freedom is a friend of America. Our commitment to freedom is not confined to a culture or a continent. It is absolute and universal. It was this principle, hardwired into our DNA, that President Obama appeared to violate during his 8 days of silence while innocent democratic demonstrators were tortured and murdered in the streets of Tehran by Iran's tyrannical regime. Thankfully, the President finally changed his rhetoric and offered some support to the people of Iran risking their lives for their freedom. But he stopped short of any criticism or action that might be construed as ``meddling,'' in his words, in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation. But in the last week, the President has reversed course, meddling up to his ears in the domestic affairs of another sovereign nation, Honduras. Depressingly, the President has once again sided with an illegitimate and anti-American autocrat over democracy, the rule of law, and an oppressed people who only want to be free. The facts on the ground in Honduras are neither disputed nor confusing, but they have been largely ignored by an international media distracted by the death of a celebrity. Let me read these facts into the record. Honduras is a constitutional republic and a longtime ally of the United States. It is one of the poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere, especially since it was ravaged by the direct hit of Hurricane Mitch in 1998. In 2005, Hondurans elected as their President Manuel Zelaya, a left of center but seemingly moderate candidate from the Liberal Party. Given Latin America's troubling history of military coups and self- appointed Presidents for life, the Honduran Constitution strictly limits Presidents to one term. So seriously do Hondurans take their Presidential term limits that in Latin America, the phrase--and I will butcher this Spanish, but I want to give it a try--``continuar en el poder.'' It means to continue in power. It carries with it a dark connotation to the region for everyone living there. For a President to overthrow the Constitution and violate term limits is violating the constitutional form of government. So seriously that article 238 of the Honduran Constitution says any President who even proposes an extension of his tenure in office ``shall immediately cease performing the functions of his post.'' So it is a de facto resignation of office in Honduras for a President to attempt to do what their President did. Zelaya's 2005 campaign was supported by Hugo Chavez, the Marxist Venezuelan dictator bent on amassing power in the Western Hemisphere at the expense of what he calls ``the North American empire.'' That is us. Zelaya quickly aligned his government with Chavez's and joined anti- American socialists, such as the Castro brothers in Cuba and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, in Chavez's economic cartel. With Zelaya's term coming to an end early next year, Chavez convinced him to do as he has done in Venezuela: to force a constitutional amendment extending his Presidential term. This would be in direct violation of what their Constitution says. Earlier this year, Zelaya called for a referendum to initiate a constitutional convention. In the ensuing litigation, the Honduran courts ruled the referendum was unconstitutional and illegal, as the Honduran Constitution explicitly gives only its Congress the power to call such a vote. Zelaya forged ahead, calling his referendum a ``nonbinding survey.'' This, too, the supreme court found unconstitutional. Zelaya then ordered the head of the Honduran military, General Vasquez, to conduct the election anyway. Vasquez expressed concerns about the vote's legality, so Zelaya fired him. The supreme court ordered Zelaya to reinstate Vasquez, and Zelaya refused. The supreme court ordered the military to seize the referendum ballots to prevent Zelaya from going ahead with the illegal vote. Zelaya then personally led an armed mob to steal back the ballots, which, it should be noted, were suspiciously printed in Venezuela. Zelaya ordered his government to set up 15,000 polling places to conduct the referendum for June 28. On Friday, June 26, the Attorney General of Honduras, Luis Rubi, filed a complaint before the Honduran Supreme Court petitioning for an arrest warrant for President Zelaya. The court issued the warrant unanimously and, according to the Constitution, ordered the Honduran military to execute it. Early in the morning of Sunday, June 28, the day of the vote, the military arrested President Zelaya at his home. They put him on a plane to Costa Rica, as Honduras has no prison capable of withstanding a mob riot of the sort they feared Chavez and Ortega might whip up. So they did it for his safety. That same day, the Honduran Congress, controlled by his Liberal Party--his own party--voted 125 to 3 to replace Zelaya with their speaker, Roberto Micheletti, as a member of the Liberal Party. This transfer of power was strictly in keeping with Honduras's constitutional line of succession as the Vice President had recently resigned. The regularly scheduled general elections remain set for this November, and interim President Micheletti is not a candidate. The previously nominated candidates from the two major parties remain on the campaign trail, and both candidates and parties overwhelmingly approved the ouster of Zelaya. At every step in the process, the legitimate democratic government strictly adhered to the Honduran Constitution and civilian leadership of the military remained intact. The military did not execute a coup. It thwarted the coup plotted by Hugo Chavez and implemented by Manuel Zelaya. Honduras's democratic institutions are operating today, and its government functions are secure. The only aggrieved party in this process is Mr. Chavez, whose brazen attempts to corrupt Honduran democracy was thwarted by what has now been nicknamed ``the little country that could.'' The people of Honduras stood up to Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, the Castro brothers, and they stood up for freedom and the rule of law. For their courage, President Obama has condemned them. He has called the constitutional ouster of President Zelaya not legal, claiming an expertise in Honduran law over and above that of a unanimous Honduran Supreme Court and a nearly unanimous Honduran Congress. Secretary of State Clinton lazily joined the international media in calling the removal of President Zelaya ``a coup,'' a term fraught with dark memories of military juntas and banana republic. Of course, this is the same administration that insists on calling the recent fraud in Iran an election. The Obama administration joined Chavez's preposterous Soviet-style propaganda resolution in the Organization of American States condemning Honduran democracy. Hondurans I have spoken with--I have spoken with a number of folks who have missionary groups there, medical groups. I have talked to Miguel Estrada who was born and raised in Honduras and is now a constitutional expert in this country. This morning I talked to former Honduran President Ricardo Maduro. They are all totally befuddled at the strange response they are getting from the supposedly free world, including our own administration. Why are we siding with Hugo Chavez? This morning in Russia, President Obama reiterated his support for Zelaya, the would-be dictator, as the rightful President of Honduras. According to ABC News, he said: America supports now the restoration of the democratically elected President of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies. Continuing with the quote from President Obama: We do so not because we agree with him. We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or not. The President appears to think his support for Zelaya is based on some principles of self-determination. He speaks as if opposition to Zelaya is based on partisan political differences. Zelaya was not ousted by political enemies; he was ousted by a government controlled by his own party. He was ousted by a unanimous supreme court operating in accordance with the Honduran Constitution and in conjunction with the nation's attorney general and Supreme Electoral Tribunal. These folks followed the rule of law. The Honduran people have chosen their own leaders. Those leaders--in a constitutional, bipartisan, and nearly unanimous process--removed Manuel Zelaya from office. The Honduran people have upheld our President's so-called universal principle. The people seeking to undermine that principle are Hugo Chavez, the Castro brothers, Daniel Ortega, Mel Zelaya, and--unbelievably--the Obama administration. This is not about politics. This is about the rule of law, freedom, and democracy, all of which are being defended by the Hondurans right now against their enemies--of which we appear to be one. Why are we not standing with them? Blood was shed in Iran while we stood idly by. Zelaya's return to Honduras on a Venezuelan jet and with the moral authority of the United States will almost certainly lead to more bloodshed. What are we doing on the side of tyrants and sworn enemies of freedom; going as far, on their behalf, to threaten economic sanctions against one of our poorest and bravest allies? Secretary of State Clinton is reportedly planning a meeting with Mr. Zelaya in Washington this week. I implore her to reconsider that meeting. Elevating an impeached and disgraced autocrat is more than an insult to Honduran democracy, it is a green light to other would-be Chavezes around Latin America. It is a signal to the enemies of democracy and freedom that the United States no longer stands as a beacon of liberty. It is a signal that the rule of law is now passe in Latin America and that Hugo Chavez and his corrupt and brutal idealogy has free rein to meddle wherever he pleases in the Western Hemisphere. What do we stand for, if not for freedom, democracy, and the rule of law? Where is the spine of the administration to stand up to anti- American and antidemocratic thugs in our own back yard? Where is the intellectual clarity to see the facts on the ground as they are? Manuel Zelaya is a criminal, a constitutionally removed former President of a proud and noble country. To my knowledge, no administration official has refuted or even grappled with the facts regarding Zelaya's attempted coup. Given those still undisputed and documented facts, on what basis does the administration demand Zelaya's reinstatement? His removal from office was no more a coup than was Gerald Ford's ascendance to the Oval Office or the election to the Senate of our newest colleague, Al Franken. It is bad enough that the President's ad hoc and highly personalized foreign policy seems to be less about supporting the rule of law than it is about supporting particular rulers. But the last 4 weeks suggest that the President cannot even be counted upon to support our legitimate allies. What happened in Honduras last week was not a tragedy, it was a triumph of democratic courage and the unyielding determination of a free people to stand up to despotism. The tragedy has been the failure of the West and of our own government in Washington to stand up for justice and freedom in Latin America. It is not too late. I have written to Secretary Clinton, and there is growing congressional support for the legitimate government in Honduras. Everywhere I go someone comes up to me and tells me to stand up for freedom in Honduras. There is still time to look at the facts, even to visit Honduras itself. Call down there, talk to the people, even Americans in the Peace Corps or on missionary work, and ask them if they are living under an oppressive military junta. They will laugh and tell you they are living under an independent and vibrant democracy, with a representative government led by people they elected. They will tell you about the free and open debate in the ongoing Presidential campaign and whom they are supporting in the November elections. There is still time to correct our position and support our true allies. And because we can, we should. We must. Because today--and I will try my Spanish again--``un amigo de libertad es un amigo de Honduras''--a friend of freedom is a friend of Honduras. Mr. President, before I yield, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up the DeMint amendment.

Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I will speak to the amendment later. I see a colleague wanting to speak and so I will yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I hope everyone had a good break. I can't say that I am glad to be back, but there are some important things to do. I start by calling up amendment No. 1370, which is at the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, this amendment is about the Capitol Visitor Center. Among other things, we all know the new Capitol Visitor Center, which is very beautiful, welcomes folks from all over the country and the world to the Capitol. It includes interesting and valuable museum-style exhibits about the history of the Capitol and Congress. Unfortunately, the way the Capitol Visitor Center has been built and the way the displays have been set up, it conspicuously ignores America's unique religious heritage and the role that heritage played in the founding of the Republic. Indeed, the original exhibits now there seem to suggest the Federal Government was the solution to all our problems and the fulfillment of all human aspirations, as if we were a government with a nation instead of the other way around. Even the national motto was misrepresented--as out of many, one. My unanimous consent agreement will help correct the record as it is displayed at the Capitol Visitor Center. It will authorize the engraving of our true national motto, which is: In God we trust. It will also order the engraving of the Pledge of Allegiance with its reference to one Nation under God in a prominent position in the Capitol Visitor Center. From the beginning many of us were concerned about what looked like a historical whitewash of our Nation's faith heritage from the Capitol Visitor Center. I thank Senators Feinstein and Bennett for their support. I have a letter they both signed formalizing our agreement for the historical corrections in my amendment. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeMINT. I also want to make a point about the unfortunate expense associated with these design corrections. I regret these funds must be spent. That the historical whitewash of the original design contained these inaccuracies was unfortunate, certainly. But the $150,000 this project will cost is less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the cost of the Capitol Visitor Center. Anyone interested in finding offsets can count on my support in identifying waste in the underlying bill that is funding Congress for next year. When these engravings are completed and when we can welcome God back into the Capitol Visitor Center, visitors to the Capitol will see a fairer and more historically accurate depiction of the all-important relationship between faith and freedom in America. I understand the majority is prepared to accept the amendment by a voice vote or unanimous consent.