Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I have another amendment I have been informed the majority plans to block consideration of, which is No. 1367 regarding transparency at the Federal Reserve. I wish nonetheless to take a few moments to discuss it.

Mr. DeMINT. The unelected central bank of the United States, the Federal Reserve, enjoys a monopoly over the flow of our money and credit but has never been completely transparent and accountable to Congress since its creation in 1913. Since 1913, our dollar has lost more than 95 percent of its purchasing power. My amendment is called the Federal Reserve sunshine amendment. It is modeled after legislation sponsored by Representative Ron Paul of Texas in the House and our colleague Senator Sanders of Vermont in the Senate. This amendment amends section 714 of title 31 of the United States Code to remove existing restrictions on how the Government Accountability Office can audit the Federal Reserve. With these limitations gone, the Fed's discount window operation, funding facilities, open market operations, and agreements with foreign central banks and governments would all be finally open to congressional oversight. The Government Accountability Office would be required to audit the Fed by the end of 2010 and to report its findings to Congress. Every dollar created by the Fed has an effect on the value of the dollars in our pockets and bank accounts. We need to pay more attention to the effect of Washington decisions, whether fiscal policy made by Congress or monetary policy made by the Fed. They all are ultimately borne by the American people. The Federal Reserve will create and disburse trillions of dollars in response to our current financial crisis. Americans across the Nation, regardless of their opinion on the bailout, want to know where the money has gone, exactly how much has been spent, and what collateral has been taken in return. That is why we see so much bipartisan support in the House, in Bernie Sanders and Jim DeMint being on the same side in the Senate. Inflation is a hidden tax. We, unfortunately, forget about it too often when we are debating spending bills in Congress. Our fiscal actions, higher deficits, increased long-term debt, and entitlement obligations will necessarily need to be paid for by printing new money or borrowing more money from an increasingly skeptical world. Either option results in higher interest rates for consumers and a devaluing of the dollars they have already earned and saved. Allowing the Fed to operate our Nation's monetary system in almost complete secrecy leads to abuse, inflation, and a lower quality of life for every American. Unfortunately, the majority has decided to use a procedural tactic to block a vote on this amendment by invoking something called rule XVI. This is a rule that prevents policy being added to spending bills. The majority claims we do not legislate on appropriations bills. Of course, that is false. In fact, there are already rule XVI violations in the bill we are trying to amend. We saw this majority airdrop the cash for clunkers program into the recent supplemental appropriations bill. The majority may claim this amendment is not relevant to the underlying bill, but in fact there are already provisions in this bill related to Government Accountability Office audits, so this language is quite appropriate on this bill. The legislation has already received the support of more than one-half of the House of Representatives within a few short months of its introduction. It is time for the Senate to show its support. I ask the majority leader again to allow a vote on amendment 1367 regarding a GAO audit of the Federal Reserve. I call up amendment 1367.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I regret the objection. Since the other side is arguing that rule XVI applies here, my amendment contains language to an existing GAO audit of the Federal Reserve. Because it is legislative in nature--in other words, because it actually addresses the audit itself and not just the funds for the General Accountability Office--they say it is out of order. I have a parliamentary inquiry: Is the language in section 1501(b) dealing with an existing GAO audit of the National Transportation Safety Board legislative?

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Chair. Does it violate rule XVI?

Mr. DeMINT. So the Democrats are suggesting that it is somehow illegitimate for me to offer an amendment dealing with an existing GAO audit when they themselves have included language dealing with other audits that flatly violates rule XVI. Further parliamentary inquiry: Is the language in section 1501(c) regarding a GAO audit of local educational agency spending legislative in nature and in violation of rule XVI?

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Chair. What about section 1501(d) which repeals a GAO audit of the small business participation in the Alaska national pipeline; is that legislative in nature and does it violate rule XVI?

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I have a long list here for which I understand from the Parliamentarian the answers will continue to be yes. We have several provisions, obviously, dealing with the GAO and GAO audits in this bill. The other side cannot stand behind a rule they have flagrantly violated themselves. There is an earmark in this bill for Nebraska. It is the only earmark in the bill. I would ask the Chair, what about the provision in the Library of Congress section containing a $200,000 earmark for the Durham Museum in Omaha, NE? Is that a legislative item? And does it violate rule XVI?

Mr. DeMINT. Thank you, Madam President. Then, would it be accurate to say the provision contains legislative language that meets the definition of rule XVI, even though it is arguably germane to the House language?

Mr. DeMINT. Thank you, Madam President. I think I have made my point, and I will not take this any further. Clearly, there is a double standard. One of the most sought after amendments we have probably brought up in the House and the Senate since I have been here is an audit of the Federal Reserve. Everywhere I went last week people were thanking me for finally looking at what the Federal Reserve was doing and trying to let the American people know what is happening. This is an audit that has broad support, and I would encourage my colleagues on the Democratic side to allow this amendment to be voted on. But, apparently, the other side has decided to challenge it with rule XVI, which they do not apply to their own language. But as I said, Madam President, I have probably said enough and I thank you for your indulgence. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a moment about a pending nomination that is not necessarily the topic of dinner table conversations around the country, but is nonetheless very important in all our daily lives. I am speaking of the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC. Wireless phones, cable, and satellite television, Internet services, and local television and radio are a part of everyone's daily lives in one way or another. And while we may all have a customer service issue from time to time, for the most part these industries and the products they offer are a showcase of the freedom and innovation that has made America the most dynamic economy and society in the world's history. We have seen these innovations in dramatic ways in recent days with Twitter reporting, YouTube videos, and mobile updates from the streets of Iran. Of course, the most important element of this new technology is that it gives an unprecedented power to individuals to speak about and share their personal experiences--everyone is empowered and the individual controls the message. This is very important as it changes the media paradigm we have known for a generation. We often hear the terms ``old'' and ``new'' media. It is more accurate to say ``centralized'' and ``personalized'' media. Not long ago, the average American had access to only a handful of radio and television programming, a local newspaper, no Internet, no mobile telephone service, no texting, and certainly no mobile broadband. In other words, the average person had far less access to information than today, and from far more centralized sources. The changing communications landscape calls for a knowledgeable and forward-looking FCC; not one looking to regulatory structures of the past that will hamstring future growth and innovation. The President has nominated Julius Genachowski to be Chairman of the FCC. While I believe he is very knowledgeable about today's communications landscape, I am afraid he may have tendencies to direct the development of our private communications industries, particularly broadcast media, with an eye towards the past. Many of my colleagues have chosen to give Mr. Genachowski the benefit of the doubt, and are supporting his nomination. I believe he has enough votes to be confirmed as FCC Chairman. While I remain concerned that Mr. Genachowski will take us backward, towards more government control of media, more government interference in commerce, and, unfortunately, more government control of media content--I will not prevent his nomination from proceeding. I will, however, be vigilant in the weeks and months ahead and will fight any effort that even appears to have the effect of limiting or mandating political speech on the airwaves. Mr. Genachowski has said that, under his guidance, any rules that the Commission considers would be through ``processes that are open, transparent, fair, and driven by facts about the industry and the marketplace.'' I hope this is true and promise to hold him to his commitments. Nomination of Robert S. Litt and Stephen W. Preston

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, it seems that you are always stuck with listening to me. I apologize for that. I wish to respond to my colleagues' grand design of our new health care system in just a moment, but I would like to back up a little bit and discuss health care and some other things in context. There is no question in anyone's mind that these are difficult times for America. Millions are unemployed, and the unemployment rate continues to climb. Our economy has been in decline for a number of months. Our military is strained all around the world at a time when our enemies seem to be gaining strength and increasing in numbers. Back here at home, our spending and borrowing and debt are out of control, and this massive government spending plan we call the stimulus has yet to show any results. We see government intervention in many areas of our economy--in the banks, financial markets, the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the takeover of large insurance companies, our auto industry. People back home and all around the country are alarmed. As I heard someone say last week as they tried to explain their alarm to me, they threw up their hands and they just said, ``I am outraged out.'' They could not speak anymore. My question for my colleagues today is, Is this a good time to create another government program? The answer on the other side has obviously been yes. Yesterday, they all voted, I believe, to get the Federal Government in the tourism business, to close off debate and pass a plan that would get the Federal Government to promote tourism in America all over the world. I think it is like $400 million--in today's terms, a small amount of money. But the tourism industry, while hurting because of the economy, is certainly not in collapse, in need of a government bailout. The tourism industry spent billions of dollars on advertising last year. It is not as if the rest of the world does not know we are here. The problem with tourism in America can be laid at the feet of an inept government. If you ask people abroad why they are not coming here in such numbers as they have in the past, we find the statistics show that we are the most unwelcoming at our Customs office, in the lines to get through to America. If you want to have a business convention or trade show in America, it is very likely you cannot get the visas for your customers to come here, so many of these conventions and trade shows have had to move overseas. The problem with getting people here is in what the government is not doing well. We don't need to get the government in the tourism business. I have plants back home, such as BMW, that would like to bring people from their headquarters in Germany over here to train the American workforce, but they found it is easier just to send our people over there because it is so hard to get their people to come here. They could come here and stay in our hotels, eat at our restaurants, and improve our economy. But instead an inept government causes us to send Americans to stay in their hotels, eat in their restaurants, and rent their cars. It is illogical for us to create a Federal tourism agency, a la Fannie Mae, a new government-sponsored entity that is going to help promote tourism, but it is this same kind of logic we are now using for health care. We are saying we have a crisis in health care, so therefore the government needs to get more involved and to take over various aspects of the health care industry, such as was just described by my colleague from New York. But if we look at this situation a little more clearly, we will see that it is the government that is causing most of our problems and not allowing the free market health care system to work. Let's look at this a little bit closer because there was a whole lot of misinformation that was just shared on the floor here today. Let's look at health care coverage in America. You have about 60 percent now who are in employer-sponsored plans and almost another 10 percent who have purchased their own insurance on the individual market. So we have about 70 percent of people with private insurance. You have about 25 percent Medicare-Medicaid and another 4 percent or so who are in military plans on the government side. So you have between 25 and 30 percent of Americans who are now in a government health plan. And my colleague from New York was just bragging about how well the government health plans work in Medicare. Certainly, if you have Medicare and you can get a doctor to see you, it works just fine. But the problem is, every dollar that has come in from Medicare since its inception has been spent. The 2.5 precent that comes out of every paycheck has not been saved for our senior citizens, to pay for their health care; it has been spent and there is absolutely no money in the system to take care of America's baby boomers. This works like a government plan my colleague was just bragging about. It has trillions of dollars of unfunded debt that will fall on the heads of our children and grandchildren, trillions of dollars that we have no idea how we are going to pay for. And Medicare is hopelessly in debt at the State and the Federal level. But even worse is this problem. And let's keep looking at government versus the private plans. I think most people in America would believe the best situation now in health care is to have a health insurance policy so you can pick your own doctor and decide with your doctor what kind of health care you are going to get. No plan is perfect. There are always problems in health care. It is very complex. But you have here about 70 percent of people who are in that situation, but every year their insurance costs more money. My colleague was saying that is caused by private insurance, but let's find out the truth. Every year, these government plans pay physicians and hospitals less. They pay a physician less than their costs to see a patient. And I have doctors I know back in South Carolina and rural areas. They have to close their practice to new Medicare and Medicaid patients because once over 60 percent of their patients are Medicaid or Medicare, they can no longer make a living. That is happening all over the country. But you know how these costs are picked up. The hospitals and doctors who take Medicare and Medicaid have to charge private insurers more money every year because every year the government pays doctors less. That is why fewer and fewer of our best and brightest students are going to medical school and that is why we are headed for a real physician shortage in this country--not because of private health insurance but because of government plans. We have about 16 percent who have no coverage in our country today. Those are the ones whom we say we are concerned with right now. The government requires hospitals to provide them service whether they have any insurance or money anyway, and where do these costs go? They are transferred to those who have private insurance. So every year the inept government is transferring huge amounts of costs over to those employers and those individuals who are buying private health insurance. My colleagues are trying to say that the private market is what is failing us and we need to expand this part of the health care market-- the part that is not paying doctors and hospitals to see patients, the part that is trillions of dollars in debt, and the part that is already beginning to ration health care for those who are under those plans. If you want to know how the public option is going to work, I encourage you to drop by a Social Security office, take a number, and sit down and wait for them to get to you, or maybe go to a veterans hospital or another government service. Do we really want the government involved with health care? Health care is the most personal and private service we have as Americans. Do we want to turn health care over to the most impersonal, the most bureaucratic, the most wasteful and, in many cases, the most corrupt aspect of our society? What we do need to do is look at how we can get these private plans in the hands of those who have no insurance. That is something we can do and we can do it for a lot less than the current administration is talking about. But before we talk about how we are going to get these people insured, let's look at who they are, because this is being misrepresented to exaggerate the problem, to create a crisis so we can justify another government takeover of another area of our economy. We say we have about 46 million uninsured in America. Here is how that breaks down. We have about 6.4 million who actually have Medicaid today, but they are undercounted in the census. This has been proven and we know it to be true. We have another 4.3 million who are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP or another government program, but they haven't signed up for it. We need to make more of an effort to get people to sign up for the programs they are eligible for. We have about 9.3 million who are noncitizens, many of whom are illegal in this country, and the taxpayer should not be paying for their health care. We have about 10 percent who have incomes of 300 percent or more over poverty and they are not buying health care. I have had some of those work for me when I was in business. I would offer to pay for most of their insurance. I would pay $500 a month, they would pay $50. Some people turn it down because they don't want to pay $50. There are some people who don't want to buy insurance. We have some people between 18 and 34 years old without insurance, and we have 10.6 million who are uninsured. If we look at this, at least half of these should not be subsidized by any type of government plan who are not already eligible for a plan or not citizens of our country. We could look at 20 million to 25 million. I want to make clear that if there is one person in America who doesn't have access to good health care, that is a crisis to them, and we need to do everything we can to make sure we are fair and that affordable health care policies are available to every American. That is my goal. That is the goal of the Republican Party. This week--this afternoon, as a matter of fact--I am going to introduce a plan that will solve the problem at a fraction of the cost of what the Democrats and President Obama are proposing. In various ways, their plan is to expand the government option, whether it is a government health plan or a government-mandated plan on the private insurance market. One way or another, they want to expand government rather than expand private insurance. I know this for a fact. This is my fifth year in the Senate. I have introduced a lot of resolutions that would help these people get insurance, and every time my Democratic colleagues have voted it down. We have had proposals for association health plans that would allow small businesses to come together and buy insurance at a lower price to offer their employees. They voted it down. I had a proposal I introduced called Health Care Choice that would do what my colleague from New York was talking about, which is break up that single State monopoly of a few health care plans. My plan would allow Americans to buy health insurance from any State in the country. Wherever a plan is registered, certified by that State, someone in South Carolina could buy it from Arizona or Colorado, and that is how most industries work in America. If I want to go across the line and buy a car in North Carolina, I am not prohibited to do that, but I can't do it if it is a health insurance plan. So we allow these quasi-monopolies to develop in every State. I have introduced a plan that would allow Americans the freedom to buy health insurance from any State in the country, and to a person the Democrats voted it down. I have introduced a plan that would allow people to use what they have in a health savings account to pay for health insurance premiums. Common sense, right? They voted it down. The fact is this: The people who want to expand the government option do not want these people to have private insurance, because they believe in government and they do not believe the private market can keep itself accountable. But the problems we have with the private market now can be attributed, to a large degree, to the government not paying its share of the costs, to the government having policies that keep quasi-monopolies in every State. I have had a proposal that would allow individuals to deduct the cost of their health insurance, just as we allow employers. The Democrats to a person voted it down. Folks, we don't have to look far to understand what is going on. The people who like taking over General Motors and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac want these government health plans to be expanded all the way around this circle. This is something we have to stop. We can do it very simply if we use fairness and freedom. My plea to all Americans, and particularly my colleagues, is before we give up on freedom in the health care area, let's let it work. That is what my proposal is. This afternoon I am going to introduce a plan that tells every American: If you like the plan you have, whether it be Medicare or Medicaid or an employer plan or a military plan, you keep it; we are not going to mess with it. But if you have no coverage at all, or if you are buying your policy on your own on the open market, we are going to, for the first time, treat you fairly and give you the same tax break we give the people in the employer-sponsored plan. This plan does this: If you are a family, we are going to give you a certificate for $5,000 to buy health insurance. If you are an individual, we will give you $2,000 a year to buy health insurance. Some will scream and say, Oh, you can't get a good policy for that, and you can, because I have bought it for my adult children who aged out of my plan. My plan also includes the option for an individual to buy health insurance in any State so we will increase competition and lower the prices. The plan also allows an employer to put money in a health savings account for you that you can use to pay for your health care or to pay the premium to support you to buy additional coverage with your health insurance. We have a provision that deals with lawsuit abuse, and we have a provision that funds high-risk pools for States so people who have high-risk conditions, uninsurable conditions, preexisting conditions, can buy insurance they can afford at the State level. The estimates are by the Heritage Foundation that within 5 years, more than 20 million of these uninsured--most of them--will have private insurance plans, because they can't use their health care certificate unless they use it to buy health insurance. I would ask my colleagues this: If we had the option to get everyone in an individual or employer plan or expand these government plans, which aren't paying their way, which are transferring costs to other people, and which are hopelessly in debt, which way do we go? But we can fund my plan without one additional dollar of taxpayer money. The estimates are over the next 10 years, getting these people insured with private policies, giving them a $5,000 a year health care certificate, will cost about $700 billion. If that number sounds familiar, that is about how much money we have outstanding with the bailout money we call TARP here in this Congress. Instead of them bringing this money back and spending it on something else, my proposal pays for my plan by recapturing this TARP money. So as this bailout money comes back over the next 5 years, it can pay to give every American access to a plan they can afford and own and keep. It is basically no additional cost to the taxpayer at this point over what we are already committed for, for the bailout. The choice belongs to Americans. Are we going to buy this idea that a government option is going to give us more choice, more quality, more personal attention? Will it attract more physicians into the profession? Any thinking American knows that isn't going to happen. The ideal plans now are those when individuals have a plan they own and can keep, they pick their own doctor, and the doctor and the patient decide what health care they are going to get. This is within our reach. We don't need a massive government takeover of health care in order to make health care accessible to every American. Let's not buy this idea that we are in such a crisis that we have to rush over the next couple of months to create another government program, another government takeover, when we see what happens to government-run health plans right in front of our eyes. It won't work. We can't afford it. They are going to end up rationing care. They are going to take employer plans, irrespective of what they say--if you have a low-cost government option that doesn't pay doctors enough to see you, you are going to see insurers dropping their health plans and you are going to end up in the lap of government whether you like it or not. Let's not give up on freedom. Let's look at the facts. Have we seen any government program, over your lifetime or mine, that has actually done what it said it was going to do at the cost it said it would be done at? My colleagues know that is not true. Social Security is so important to seniors, and a promise we must keep. It is hopelessly in debt, because this government has spent every dime Americans have put in it, and there is not a dime in the Social Security account to pay future benefits. The same with Medicare-- trillions of dollars. This is a commonsense solution that every American can see, if we don't listen to the misrepresentations we are starting to hear in this body. Every American with a policy they can afford and own and keep is available to us, within our reach, without any government takeover of health care. We just have to believe that what made America great can make health care work, and that is freedom. Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT. I withhold.

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, I rise today, regretfully, to oppose the nomination of Harold Koh to be the State Department legal adviser. It is hard to do because in meeting Mr. Koh, I certainly enjoyed him. I have friends back in South Carolina who know him. He is certainly a very likable person. But his nomination to this important position requires some scrutiny about what his philosophy is when it comes to the United States and our international agreements and the sovereignty of our country. I oppose Mr. Koh's nomination for many reasons, and most important of these is my belief that if confirmed, he will work to greatly undermine the principles of sovereignty that I believe all Americans expect of our Federal Government. Let me talk a little bit about his role and what that would be if he is confirmed as the legal adviser to the State Department. According to the State Department's Web site, the legal adviser would furnish ``advice on all legal issues, domestic and international, arising in the course of the department's work and negotiate, draft, and interpret international agreements involving peace initiatives, arms control discussions, and private law conventions on subjects such as judicial cooperation in recognition of foreign judgments.'' On a daily basis, Mr. Koh will also advise our government on a variety of Federal legal issues that he believes affect international law and our foreign relations. He will determine positions the United States should take when dealing with international bodies and in international conferences, and counsel administration officials on international negotiations, treaty interpretations, and treaty implementations. As we move forward in the future as a country, one of the biggest debates we are going to have is what role does American sovereignty play in the world and how important is it, and there is a difference of philosophy here in Washington today. So as we review this nomination, it is very important to us, particularly Republicans, that we start from the foundation in our State Department that we will act in the best interest of our country and the American people, and that our interests as a country are paramount in how we deal with the rest of the world. Of course, that does not mean that we don't try to support other countries as best we can, but the fact is, the role of the Federal Government is to protect and defend our people and our interests. So we need to make sure this key adviser to our State Department and our international relations believes those principles. Many of Mr. Koh's supporters claim that the allegations that have been voiced against him, such as undermining the Constitution, are unjustified. However, Mr. Koh's own writings suggest otherwise. For example, in a 2004 law review article titled ``International Law As Part Of Our Law,'' Mr. Koh states: U.S. domestic courts must play a key role in coordinating U.S. domestic constitutional rules with rules of foreign and international law, not simply to promote American aims but to advance the broader development of a well-functioning international judicial system. In Justice Blackmun's words, U.S. courts must look beyond narrow U.S. interests to the ``mutual interests of all nations in a smoothly functioning international legal regime'' and, whenever possible, should ``consider if there is a course of action that furthers, rather than impedes, the development of an ordered international system.'' Certainly we want good relations with countries all over the world, and we are looking at making treaties of various kinds, but an idea of a smoothly functioning international legal regime, when it subordinates the interests of the American legal regime, should cause all of us to stop and think. Our protection, our prosperity, our defense--everything we are as a country--depends first on our sovereignty, as does our support of other nations depend on our sovereignty. This idea of a global world order of some kind is frightening to many people, including myself. It appears Mr. Koh is reinterpreting our own Constitution to comply with rules of foreign and international law instead of first protecting and defending our Constitution and seeing how we can interface with other governments. Frankly, this statement should frighten American citizens who believe in upholding our Constitution, and I hope it will get the attention of my colleagues. Certainly the President has the right to nominate anyone he wants, but it is our role as the Senate to provide advice, and in this case I think disclosure to the American people, of this nominee and how he might direct our State Department activities. In 2002, in a hearing before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Mr. Koh testified in support of ratification of the United Nations Treaty on the Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Not only did Mr. Koh testify in support of ratifying this treaty, he opposed any conditions to ratification of the treaty, even those proposed by the Clinton administration. This included the very important condition stating that the treaty is not self-executing; that it has no domestic legal effect absent an act of Congress. Our rules here are that the President can sign a treaty, but it has to be ratified here in the Senate before it is executed. To insist that once this is agreed to by the administration it becomes self-acting violates those principles. Mr. Koh also claims that allegations by those who opposed the treaty due to its promotion of abortion, the legalization of prostitution, and the abolishment of Mother's Day are untrue. However, one only needs to look at the policies issued by the committee--the United Nations body charged with monitoring countries' compliance with their legal obligations under the treaty--to know that Mr. Koh's claims are untrue. For example, on May 14, 1998, the committee interpreted the treaty to require that ``all states of Mexico should review their legislation so that, where necessary, women are granted access to rapid and easy abortion.'' In February 1999, the same committee criticized China's law criminalizing prostitution and recommended that China take steps to legalize it. This does not represent American values. Also, in February 2000, the committee made the following outrageous statement regarding Belarus's celebration of Mother's Day: The Committee is concerned by the continuing prevalence of sex-role stereotypes and by the reintroduction of such symbols as a Mothers' Day and a Mothers' Award, which it sees as encouraging women's traditional roles. As these former Soviet republics, countries all over the world, are looking to America for guidance as they develop their democracies and institutions of freedom, these kinds of statements coming out of the United Nations are concerning, and I certainly don't want this same philosophy coming out of our own State Department. How can anyone argue that ratification of a radical treaty such as we have discussed will not undermine sovereignty? It is pretty obvious it would. In a speech entitled ``A World Drowning in Guns,'' published in the Fordham Law Review in 2003, Mr. Koh states: If we really do care about human rights, we have to do something about the guns. That ``something'' is a ``global system of effective controls on small arms.'' In that same speech, Mr. Koh also expressed his disappointment that the 2001 United Nations gun control conference had not led to a legally binding document. He urged that the next steps be the creation of international arms registries, giving nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Action Network on Small Arms, power to monitor government compliance with international gun control and stronger domestic regulation. In a May 4 column in Human Events, Brian Darling of the Heritage Foundation writes: Koh advocated an international ``marking and tracing regime.'' He complained that the ``United States is now the major supplier of small arms in the word, yet the United States and its allies do not trace their newly manufactured weapons in any consistent way.'' Koh advocated a United Nations governed regime to force the U.S. ``to submit information about their small arms production.'' Dean Koh supports the idea that the United Nations should be granted the power to ``standardize national laws and procedures with member states of regional organizations.'' Dean Koh feels that the U.S. should ``establish a national firearms control system and a register of manufacturers, traders, importers, and exporters'' of guns to comply with international obligations. This regulatory regime would allow the United Nations members such as Cuba and Venezuela and North Korea and Iran to have a say in what type of gun regulations are imposed on American citizens. This is not constitutional government in America. Taken to their logical conclusion, Dean Koh's ideas could lead to a national database of all firearm owners, as well as the use of international law to force the U.S. to pass laws to find out who owns guns. All who care about freedom, should read his speech. Senators need to think long and hard about whether Koh's extreme views on international gun control are appropriate for America. Let me cover a couple of other things. This one is about the Iraq war. Mr. Koh published a commentary in the Hartford Courant on October 20, 2002, entitled ``A Better Way to Deal With Iraq.'' Here is an excerpt from that article. I believe that terrorism poses a grave threat to international peace and security. I lost friends on September 11 and have shared in the grief of their families. I believe that Saddam Hussein is an evil and dangerous man who daily abuses his own people and who wishes no good for our country or the world. I fear his weapons of mass destruction and believe they should be eliminated. Yet I believe just as strongly that it would be a mistake for our country to attack Iraq without explicit United Nations authorization. I believe such an attack would violate international law. We need to think for a minute and digest what this means. Even though Mr. Koh believed that attacking Iraq would be in the best interest of America and the world, he believed we should wait on explicit directions from the United Nations before we acted. Both this commentary and his testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations demonstrate that Mr. Koh believes that if our President and Congress, empowered by our Constitution, decide military action is needed to defend our Nation from harm, we must get United Nations approval or our actions are illegal. This is an incredible position for the chief legal adviser to the State Department to adhere to. Some may argue that Mr. Koh's position on the Iraq war is merely a principled liberal position. However, his belief that countries----

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute to conclude.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to look at the record. Mr. Koh has a very winsome personality, which I appreciate, but the record gives us many reasons for concern that the State Department may not be acting in the best interests of our country under his legal counsel. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I have no problem going to this bill, but we have been working with Members on our side on a finite list of amendments that we wish to be considered on this bill. I am happy to work with the distinguished leader to obtain an agreement, and if he wishes me to cover some of those amendments today, I will. But at this point I will object to the motion to proceed and hope that we can work out an agreement.

Mr. DeMINT. I say to the Senator, I am prepared to grant a unanimous consent to move ahead right now if I can be guaranteed seven amendments: three by myself, two by Senator Coburn, and two by Senator Vitter. I will be glad to describe what those are if you like?

Mr. DeMINT. Yes, I will be glad to. Again, this is a trust but verify.

Mr. DeMINT. We had a few problems getting amendments on some other bills, so I just want to make sure we are in agreement and there are no surprises. I have three amendments we would like. One is related to the Capitol Visitor Center. The other is related to rescinding unspent stimulus money. And the other is asking for a GAO audit of the Federal Reserve. Senator Vitter has an amendment related to, I believe, our pay raises, as well as a motion to recommit the--I guess he is going to have to explain that one to me.

Mr. DeMINT. Senator Coburn has a transparency of Senate expenses amendment as well as something about enumerated powers.

Mr. DeMINT. Enumerated powers. The minority has no powers. But this is enumerated powers of the Constitution. These are our amendments. If we can just get agreement now that these can be included, we will be glad to proceed.

Mr. DeMINT. I understand the leader's position. I will object and agree to work with you in the next few hours or tomorrow if we can get general agreement and perhaps some compromise if that is possible. We certainly don't want to hold this up, but we would like to participate in the debate with a few amendments.

Mr. DeMINT. If the Senator will yield for clarification, regular order would be motion to proceed, debate, cloture. What we are trying to do is shortcut the regular order with unanimous consent, which I am very willing to grant, with some assurances that we will have some amendments. I think, just for clarification, if we went through the regular order--I think the request is to bypass regular order. I am more than willing to agree to that if we can get some assurances we will have amendments.