Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I object. I make a point of order that the pending Lieberman amendment is not germane.

Mr. DeMINT

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, all of us know the United States is facing many challenges at home and abroad today. We are in the middle of an economic crisis. Many Americans are losing their jobs. We are also being tested by our enemies and potential enemies all around the world. We have certainly seen Iran continue its nuclear weapons program. It snubbed its nose at the international community as the international community asked it to halt. Recently, perhaps the most alarming threat to our security has come from North Korea. We have seen them fire test missiles over the last year, actually test a very powerful nuclear weapon, and now they are telling us they are going to test a rocket that is capable of reaching our shores. In the middle of this, they kidnapped two Americans and sentenced them to, I think, 12 years in a labor camp. Throughout all this, America has talked tough, but I am afraid North Korea believes we are all talk. The problem with our position with North Korea at this point is there are other rogue nations looking at what is happening and seeing that they can basically ignore the United States and the international community and continue to be a growing threat to all of us. It is very important that the United States not reward this behavior as we have done for North Korea. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea was added to the State Department's ``State Sponsors of Terrorism'' list in 1988 for activities ranging from the protection of Japanese terrorists to its role in the bombing of a Korean airliner. Since that time, North Korea has remained, as a matter of documented fact, a sponsor of terrorism. Last June, President Bush announced his intention to remove North Korea from the list. At no time before or since has anyone said that North Korea ceased to be a state sponsor of terror. The delisting of North Korea was a carrot waved in front of Kim Jong Il as part of a well-meaning but extremely dangerous attempt to deal diplomatically with the urgent problem of North Korea's illegal nuclear programs. Secretary of State Clinton acknowledges that North Korea was delisted only in exchange for North Korea's commitment to abandon its nuclear weapons program and submit to outside verification. Since then, I think as most of us know, North Korea has gone further in its campaign of militant destabilization of the world than ever before. It has detonated a large nuclear bomb. It has launched missiles capable of hitting our allies. It has withdrawn from the six-party talks. It has reprocessed spent fuel rods. It has withdrawn from the United Nation's treaty that ended the Korean war over 50 years ago. It has announced its intention to launch a ballistic missile capable of hitting the Western United States. In response to these threats, I and seven of my colleagues wrote Secretary Clinton asking that she relist North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism. In addition, Senator Brownback and I authored amendments that have been endorsed by 15 Senators directing Secretary Clinton to redesignate North Korea. The response thus far has fallen short. Secretary Clinton says relisting is being considered but as part of an ongoing diplomatic process. President Obama has offered strong words, but we have yet to see action. North Korea has proven that it is immune to talk, whether that talk be sweet or tough. The President gave a speech last week saying that good relationships require speaking ``clearly and . . . plainly'' about international controversies. Relisting North Korea will speak clearly and plainly about the true nature of North Korea's regime. It will send a strong signal to our allies in the Pacific. It is now clear that President Bush's diplomatic gamble, which many opposed last year, has failed. North Korea has exploited its newfound flexibility and respectability and used it to threaten Asia and the United States. They have tapped unfrozen assets to fund their mischief, and they remain a supplier to both Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Secretary Clinton's statement over the weekend that she wants ``to see recent evidence of [North Korea's] support for international terrorism'' misses the point. North Korea was not delisted because it ceased assisting in sponsoring terror. If a convicted arsonist is released on parole, he does not have to burn down a house to go back to prison. Any crime will do. That is where we are with North Korea today. They are not operating in the spirit or letter of their agreements, and without a shred of good faith. They have not reformed and cannot be trusted. They are a state sponsor of terror and should be recognized for it. Once relisted, North Korea will suffer consequences for its aggressive provocations. There will be trade restrictions, there will be sanctions and the refreezing of assets to limit North Korea's ability to fund its weapons program. Relisting North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism will let them and the world know that the United States is serious--something this administration has yet to do. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. That is a little smoke and mirrors. If the Senator will allow me to read from page 104 of the bill, on line 4 it says: Any payments made to the United States by the International Monetary Fund as a repayment on account of the principal of a loan made under this section shall continue to be available for loans to the International Monetary Fund. You may have a date somewhere on this, but that is pretty clear, that it will continue to be a draw.

Mr. DeMINT. I would like to say a few words now and then reserve the remaining time. Mr. President, I am going to speak on my amendment to S. 1054, and it addresses a large amount of money that has been added to the war supplemental bill. In these times, it is, first of all, somewhat surprising that we would take $108 billion and add it, unrelated to war supplemental, to this spending bill. My amendment would strike $108 billion from the current spending bill, and I would like to take a few minutes to explain exactly what my amendment does and what we are striking. The Chair and all my colleagues know these are very challenging times. We often refer to it as one of the worst economic crises we have had. I think we and many Americans are concerned about how much we are spending, how much we are borrowing, and what that might mean in the not-too-distant future as it relates to inflation and interest rates and higher taxes. I am hearing very often when I go back home: Enough is enough. We have to remember, as we look at this amount of money that has been requested, what happened to what we called the TARP funds. The last administration asked us to come up with $700 billion to be used for a financial bailout because we were in a crisis, and the money was going to be used--and this was very clear--to buy toxic assets, nonperforming loans, here and around the world. It had to be done immediately or the world financial system would collapse. Under that duress, Congress approved $700 billion--really, a trillion with interest, over time--but none of the money was ever used as it was supposed to be used. We never bought any toxic assets. In fact, the money was used in different ways: to inject money into banks--even some banks that didn't want it; it has been used to make loans to General Motors and to Chrysler; and now we are talking about converting those loans to common shares so that the Government is owner of General Motors and Chrysler, as well as the AIG insurance company and possibly part owners of many banks. But the interesting part of this that relates to my amendment is that this week I asked Secretary Geithner: What is going to happen when this money is repaid? Well, if it is repaid, he said, it will go into the general fund, but the Treasury will maintain an authorization to take up to $700 billion from the general fund anytime from now on. It becomes a permanent slush fund for Treasury. So what we have done is made the Treasury Department appropriators. Anytime they want, they can appropriate up to $700 billion. That is, in effect, what we are doing with the International Monetary Fund. Let me explain to my colleagues a lot of things I didn't know until I looked into this. The International Monetary Fund was set up to make loans to nations; to help nations that might need money to get through a financial crisis. Many nations are involved, but we give them $10 billion as a kind of deposit to the fund. Currently, the IMF has the authority to use that money continuously. But we also give them the right to draw another $55 billion from our Treasury at any time. In effect, the International Monetary Fund can appropriate $55 billion from the U.S. Treasury anytime it wants. They now have over $60 billion of our money that they can use all over the world. We can debate whether that is a good thing, but what the President has asked for, and this bill provides, is an additional $100 billion credit line, in effect, to the International Monetary Fund, and it ups our deposit another $8 billion. We are going to take another $8 billion and put it in the International Monetary Fund to be used. But then we make appropriators out of the International Monetary Fund. We give them a permanent credit line of an additional $100 billion that they can appropriate anytime they want around the world. There are a lot of good things we would like to do as a country, as a Congress. We would love to improve our education system. There are a lot of challenges in health care. We have talked about our roads and bridges decaying. There are so many good things we would like to do that we don't have the money for. How can we possibly tell an International Monetary Fund that they can take $100 billion anytime they want from the U.S. Treasury if there is an emergency somewhere in the world? There will be emergencies in these times. The interesting issue we are not thinking about is we are going to have more and more crises here at home. We know California is heavily in debt--over $20 billion. They are talking about a financial collapse, as is New York and other States. But the size of California's debt is only one-fifth of what we are giving the International Monetary Fund. I don't think we have added up all of this. I am very concerned we are not considering how much money we are talking about. Let's put $108 billion in context. I know some will come and say we are not spending that amount of money, we are just authorizing it, which means it can be appropriated anytime, but we are not spending it. In fact, they took the effort to get CBO to change the way it normally scores so this is not spending. They are saying the risk is only like $5 billion. But the International Monetary Fund can take $100 billion out of our Treasury anytime it wants. With the world situation the way it is, I think we are being very naive to think it will not come out. We were told most of the TARP funds would not be used. We used most of the TARP funds. But let's think about this $100 billion. That is more than we spend as a Federal government on transportation all year. The 2010 budget for transportation is $5 billion. It is more than we spend on education for a whole year--$94 billion in our country. It is more than we spend on veterans' benefits. It is a lot of money. But very often we are talking about our own services to our own people in this country for which we do not have enough money. We need to remember the International Monetary Fund, while it may serve in theory a good purpose, people on the board who decide how this money is used include countries that we say are terrorists, such as Iran. Do we think Iran is going to help the United States when we are in trouble? Let's look at our current situation. Our current national debt as a country is $11.2 trillion--more than any other country in the world. We are the most indebted country in the whole world. Our per capita debt is $37,000. Every man, woman and child in this country owes $37,000, based on what we have already borrowed. But if you include Social Security and Medicare liabilities, our current expenditures will exceed tax revenues by $40 trillion over the next 75 years. Our debt is now 80 percent of our gross domestic product--80 percent of our total economy, which is the highest level since 1951. The President's budget estimates that total debt relative to our total economy will rise 97 percent by 2010 and 100 percent thereafter. We are going to have debt that is larger than our total economy in the next year or two. We currently owe $740 billion to the People's Republic of China and we owe $635 billion to Japan and $186 billion to the oil exporters. Keep in mind, if the IMF does access this $108 billion, we will have to borrow it in order for them to get it, and we will have to pay interest on that money. We will be told we will earn interest on any money that is borrowed, but we will likely pay even a higher interest rate in order to make that money available. When we do, we increase our debt even further.

Mr. DeMINT. Yes.

Mr. DeMINT. Do you have the cite?

Mr. DeMINT. Does the Senator have that? I have the bill with me. It would be a great help to point this out. Of course, 5 years, the drawing of $100 billion anytime in the next 5 years is something we should not even consider.

Mr. DeMINT. Yes.

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, do we need to set aside a pending amendment?

Mr. DeMINT. It is my understanding, Mr. President, that I have 20 minutes to speak.

Mr. DeMINT. I will answer the Senator on how much this costs. I think the Senator is aware, as I said, our normal way of measuring costs was changed for this bill. We are saying that, OK, if the International Monetary Fund accesses this money, it is just a loan so it is not a cost. But we have no guarantees it will get back. We say the International Monetary Fund has never lost money, but we have never been in these economic times before. We have never been in as much debt as a country. Can we afford, even if it is for the next 5 years, to have an international group that can draw $100 billion from our Treasury at any point they want? Do we want to be in that position? We have already given the Treasury Department a lot of credit to the general fund for $700 billion--which the Secretary has basically said is going to continue--and now we are going to give another line of credit to an international group in case there is a crisis around the world when we are facing crises here at home?

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, we need to equally apply the time now against both sides.

Mr. DeMINT. I will yield the time in a minute and reserve the remainder of my time. I appreciate the comment of the Senator. I think we should have open debate about this. I would like to talk a little bit more about this idea that a line of credit is not spending. We use that a lot around here. We say we have authorized it but have not appropriated it yet. But what the language of this bill does is it not only authorizes $108 billion of new money for the International Monetary Fund, it gives them the power to appropriate it at any time. We may not call that spending around here, but that is just political talk. If that money is taken from our Treasury, we have to borrow money to give it to them, and they may or may not pay it back. We may say the International Monetary Fund has been stable for years, but part of the bill that is going through here today--the other side will say we have collateral, they have gold--but part of the bill here, and what my amendment strikes is, giving the International Monetary Fund the ability to sell over $12 billion worth of their gold, which is collateral supposedly for our money, in order to create more cash for them to lend around the world. I am not saying the International Monetary Fund does not have a function. But we have already put at risk over $60 billion at a time when our country is struggling, at a time when it looks like we are going to triple the national debt over the next years, at a time when many of our States are near bankruptcy, and at a time when we do not have the money to fund the priorities such as health care and transportation, energy research, health research that we are always talking about. We need more money to do those things that are essential here in America. How can we possibly, on a war supplemental bill, add $108 billion that is unrelated, basically extort the votes out of the Members by forcing us to either vote against our troops or vote against this reckless risk we are talking about taking? It makes absolutely no sense in this crisis that we have talked about in this country to put ourselves at risk for another $108 billion, when we don't even know how we are going to pay the interest on the money we have already borrowed.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I yield and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments that we have heard today. I want to make it clear we are not trying to minimize or change our commitment to the IMF at all. We are already committed for about $65 billion. We are the largest contributor to the IMF, and that will continue. What I am opposing is a massive increase in our commitment of $108 billion at a time this country cannot afford it. We have also heard this is not really any spending, that no money will really come out of our Treasury. If that were true, we would not need to ask for it; it would not need to be in the bill. If that were true, it could be $200 or $300 billion, and it still would not cost us anything. This is just political speak here in Washington. We are giving a credit line to an international agency where we do not control the vote, where they can take $108 billion more than they already have, 108 in addition to the $65 billion we have committed to this agency, to use in a way that they would like. I object to this because I have businesses in South Carolina that can't get a loan, a small loan from a bank that has taken Federal money. They can't continue their business because the bank says these are difficult economic times and that is a high risk. So we are going to take $100 billion and give it to countries that are high risk because supposedly that helps our economy. Enough is enough. We have spent more than we can pay back already. It is wrong to attach this type of spending to a bill that supports our troops. This should be taken out of the bill right now. That is what my amendment does. It strikes a section that would give an additional $108 billion of appropriation authority to the IMF. It also strikes a section that allows them to begin to sell off the gold reserves that we just heard are a so-called security for this loan. This makes no sense. I urge colleagues to say enough is enough. There are many good things we can do, but we, frankly, don't have the money anymore. This is more than we spend on education every year, more than we spend on veterans benefits, more than we spend on transportation. It is real money, because it will be drawn upon, because there are countries all over the world in difficulty. We will set a precedent. Notice that in the criticism of the bill, they are not using this to criticize it, because not only does this create a permanent amount of authority to withdraw money, it gives the Secretary of the Treasury the ability to make amendments to the law. We are giving the authority of this Congress over to the Secretary of the Treasury and the International Monetary Fund. None of this makes any sense. Enough is enough. No more spending. No more borrowing. It is time to let it go. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I objected to that. I was allowed 4 minutes. The other side is not showing up. I do not think that is right to take my 4 minutes. If the other side would like to yield back, I will be glad to close with my 4 minutes. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I reserve my 4 minutes.

Mr. DeMINT. Let me simplify this. I will go ahead and speak.

Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DeMINT. Are you reading from----

Mr. DeMINT. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DeMINT. I wish to make sure the Senator understands that the bill we vote on today amends what he just read about our ability to get out of this in 5 years. Sometimes it is hard to get the straight scoop here. It is real money or we wouldn't be asking for it. This is not a time in our country's history that we can afford to put another $108 billion on the line, when we can't get our own businesses enough money. We have to stop this reckless spending. I encourage colleagues to support my amendment.

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

Mr. DeMINT

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