Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendments Nos. 42, 43, and 44, and ask for their immediate consideration.

Mr. DeMINT. I appreciate the benevolence, and I would hope the Senator would agree that all of these amendments at some point can be made pending in the debate. But I will call up only amendment No. 43 right now.

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

Mr. DeMINT. Yes.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. And the quorum call will be applied against that time; is that correct?

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DeMINT. If the Senator would agree, I don't have much time left, and if I could reserve that time. If there is no opposition, obviously, I don't need to use any additional time.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I understand I have 2\1/2\ minutes left; is that correct?

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I just want to get it pending. I will not speak on it right now.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, in the interest of time, I have filed three amendments. I know the majority leader wants to move this through, so I am going to call up one of them and not speak on it at this time during the discussion and debate of the Hutchison amendment. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up the DeMint amendment No. 31 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I think I mentioned some convoluted logic. I appreciate my colleague's civil discussion on this issue, but it is interesting to hear that removing a Federal mandate on States somehow violates States rights. My colleague from Tennessee described a situation they have in their State--the same situation in South Carolina--where you can have a nonunion shop. People can choose to be in unions or unionize an organization. Workers can decide whether they belong to a union. What that is called is freedom. Those are basic rights of Americans. What my amendment would do is restore that freedom for people who live in every State, not just in States where State legislators have been able to overcome union pressure and reestablish that freedom. This is not about States rights, and this is not about the rights of the Federal Government. It is not about some Federal bureaucrats or what judges decide. Every American should have a right to decide whether they are going to join a union. For us to have a law at the Federal level imposed on people around the country that they have to join a union, they have to pay union dues, that employers have a right to fire them if they don't join a union--this is not good for individuals, but it is not good for our country. A few weeks ago, we had a debate about the American auto industry. Just about every expert recognizes that forced unionization has essentially run them out of business. There is a reason companies are leaving the forced compulsory union States and moving to Tennessee and South Carolina. It is because there is more freedom there. That is what this amendment is about. It is removing a Federal mandate that imposes on the freedom of every American. It is very relevant to the discussion today. We are talking about fairness. We are talking about discrimination. We are talking about wages. But when we force an American to join a union, take part of their wages and give it to a union, that is not freedom. I cannot imagine anyone here who thinks through this issue saying it does not have something to do with fairness and discrimination and what we are about as a country. We should have a right to unionize, we should have a right not to unionize, but we should not force an American to join a union and make their job contingent on it. This is much greater discrimination than we are dealing with in this Ledbetter bill, and it is very appropriate, if we are going to talk about fairness in eliminating discrimination, that we include this amendment that would restore a basic freedom to every American. That is what this amendment is about, is doing exactly what my colleague from Tennessee said they enjoy there. Why shouldn't they enjoy those same freedoms in Michigan and other States? I encourage my colleagues to set aside old ways of thinking and partisan politics, payback to unions. This is not about us. It is not about States. It is about people. It is about basic American rights. No American should be forced to join a union. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I am afraid the Ledbetter bill is another example that the majority in the Senate doesn't understand the American economy or how businesses create jobs or how freedom works for all of us to create a better quality of life. Recessions are caused by uncertainty. This bill creates more uncertainty for the very businesses we need to create the jobs and to keep the jobs we have in our country today. Why would we pass a bill, or even be talking about it, in the middle of a recession, that many have said is the worst we have ever seen in our lifetime? This bill will also create a lot of unintended consequences that will do the exact opposite of what it is intended to do. I was in business for well over 20 years before I came to Congress. Once you create more liability for hiring a woman or know that liability is going to exist for years, employers are going to figure out a way to get around that. This is more likely to discourage the employment and the promotion of women because it creates an indefinite liability. It seems that a lot of my colleagues have never been in business themselves. I remember being in the advertising business, and I was 1 of 15 account executives. I was about in the middle as far as salary. There were men and women who made less than I did. There were men and women who made more than I did. Some who made more than I did had less experience, but because of clients or some other factor--some other intangible--it made them worth more than I was, they were paid more. It was the same with those who made less. I was younger and in some cases less experienced than some of the men and women who made less, but I had demonstrated that I could help our company make a profit more than they had. The market was deciding our salaries. There is no way that anyone in this Senate or any government bureaucrat or Federal judge could come in and say that there was discrimination because I was paid less than someone who was making more money or the same with someone who was making less than I was. For us to intervene and create a permanent liability is only going to create more uncertainty. This is not what we need to do with our businesses. So this whole bill should not even be considered now. I have an amendment that gets at some of the issues that have been talked about with this bill, about fairness and about discrimination. One of the biggest forms of discrimination in this country today is when we force an American worker to join a union. My amendment is a right-to-work amendment. Right now in this country, we have a Federal law that forces American workers to join a union. States can pass a right-to-work law, as my State, South Carolina, has to protect their workers, but this has proved very difficult for many States with powerful union bosses and union lobbies. My amendment, which is a national right-to-work amendment, would restore the right of every American not to join a union. It would eliminate the Federal requirement that workers pay union dues. We are getting ready to hear from some opponents of this amendment that will use some very convoluted logic to defend their position. The same people who support Federal labor laws, including wage requirements that supersede State laws, will argue that my amendment violates States rights. Removing a Federal mandate on States could only violate States rights in the minds of politicians who have lost touch with our constitutional moorings. My amendment is not about States rights. It is not about Federal rights. It is not about business rights. My amendment restores basic unalienable, individual rights. No law--Federal or State--should force an American to join a union in order to get a job in this country. No law--State or Federal--should allow an American worker to be fired because he or she does not want to join a union. This is about individual rights. There should not be a Federal law that discriminates against workers who choose not to join a union. This is about fairness and about stopping basic discrimination that is sponsored by this Federal Government. I urge my colleagues to vote for this right-to-work amendment. It is very consistent with the theme of this Ledbetter bill. It is more likely to eliminate discrimination than the Ledbetter bill itself. I urge my colleagues to support it. I will reserve the remainder of my time and ask for a vote.

Mr. DeMINT. It is a discrimination and fairness bill, and my bill would change the National Labor Relations Act to remove a mandate on States.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, if I may continue, I will use the rest of my time. I want to make sure we are clear. Again, my good friend from Tennessee has said that somehow this amendment is going to take away the rights of States to have a right- to-work law. This is a right-to-work law. Every State in the country would have a right to work, a right to choose to be union or not to be union. This is not to restrict a State in any way at all. Right now, if a State wants to be right-to-work, it has to override Federal legislation. Most of us continuously talk about protecting secret ballots of workers. It is Federal legislation, it imposes a law on everyone, but it is protecting the rights of individuals because it is not about unions and it is not about the businesses for which they work. The Secret Ballot Protection Act would protect the individual and their rights. That is what this amendment is about. It is respecting the rights of individuals not to join a union. It does not take away any right from a State; it actually removes a Federal mandate on States. I appreciate all the time that was given to this discussion. I, again, urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. DeMINT. Right.

Mr. DeMINT. The Ledbetter bill.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, a number of us--many Americans--are disappointed that the first act of this new Congress and this new President will be to add $350 billion more borrowing on the backs of our children and grandchildren. Madam President, $350 billion will be in addition to another $350 billion that we approved last year, as well as the nearly $1 trillion we are talking about in stimulus that will be coming up next year. This is not the change that many Americans had hoped for as we enter a new administration. Many of us are very disappointed in how the first round of troubled assets funds have been used. It is clear that the intention of the incoming President and the new Democratic majority in Congress is to spend and borrow our way out of this recession. That doesn't work for families. It is not going to work for our country. More spending and borrowing and printing money may help Washington to grow and prosper, but it is certainly not going to help American families and businesses grow and prosper. In this context that we are here today talking about this $350 billion in spending, with all respect to my colleague who just spoke, the easy thing to do is vote for more spending here in Washington. We find it is almost impossible to get people to vote for any cuts in spending. Yet, in spite of our calls for economic relief in an economic meltdown situation, Congress refuses to make any sacrifices on what we do here. I am speaking to support this resolution of disapproval that has been offered by Senator Vitter, and I encourage all of my colleagues to take this responsible step to slow down this avalanche of spending and debt in our country. Some are trying to make us feel a little better about this incredible amount of spending by saying: It is not real spending; the government is actually investing in debt of companies and intervening in companies and that we could get some of this money back. Frankly, it doesn't make me feel any better to know that this government is intervening in the private sector and every place it touches, it is going to bring new rules and regulations and make our economy less likely to operate as it should. As we know, many who voted for this TARP bill last October now regret they did it. I didn't vote for it, but many who have, have issued press releases and spoken on this floor being very critical of how it was used and the fact that it hasn't worked. The promises that were made of how this money was going to be used were changed within a couple of weeks of the time the panic was issued here in Washington, and everyone was told they needed to vote for it or there would be worldwide economic calamity. Yet, almost before the ink was dry, they changed what they were going to do on the bill. I think for that reason, many do not trust this whole process of creating a slush fund for an administration, whether it be Republican or Democrat, to spend $700 billion. We know what happened last fall. In October there was a crisis mentality. We were told we had to act immediately. Since then, in spite of all of the promises, the stock market has fallen nearly 25 percent and we are in the same credit problem situation that we had then. It is too much money to be throwing at the wall in hopes that it might work. I still hear at home that all of this money we put into the system has not worked its way into small business loans or loans for individuals, loans to buy cars, and we have no assurance at this point that an additional $350 billion will do that. I would encourage all of my colleagues to look at where we are as a Nation and the amount of debt we have. The amount of debt we have is now approaching a half a million dollars for every American family. It is very difficult to justify continuing to borrow money when all we are doing is treating the symptoms of the problem. It is amazing to me that we are talking about throwing more money at a problem and we have yet to address the causes of the problem. We know the government made many mistakes with government-sponsored entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We have not corrected those problems in a way that will show any results. We know we require banks to make loans to people who can't afford to pay them back and we have not corrected those problems. If you talk to any businessman--and I have been a businessman most of my life--they are not looking for a short-term, knee-jerk solution; they need to have a predictable business environment in order to take risks and make investments and grow their business. If we were looking at real solutions such as lowering our corporate tax rate, lowering capital gains that would encourage the nearly $11 trillion of private money that is now sitting on the sidelines--we are not talking about doing anything that is going to encourage this private money to get into the market, into the banking system that would create more liquidity. All we are doing is treating the symptoms, and there is no discussion of solving the problem. I hope my colleagues will take the telephone calls and the e-mails they are getting from their constituents, as I am, seriously. Americans intuitively know that what we are doing here is wrong. Even if it worked for a few months, all of us know we have to pay it back, our children and our grandchildren for generations to come, with a lower standard of living, incredibly high taxes, and a devalued currency. Madam President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak and I yield my time, as I again encourage my colleagues to vote for this resolution of disapproval, and let's figure out how to solve the real problem.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, will you let me know when I am at 5 minutes? The platform for the inauguration is almost complete. They are putting the finishing touches on it. I think America, with good reason, is excited with new hope, the idea of change. This is something we need in our country. We have obviously gotten bogged down in many areas. But I am afraid as I walked in the Senate Chamber today, I smelled the same stale air of good-ole'-boy, back-slapping, porkbarrel-lobbyist-driven politics. We are here on a Sunday voting about something in the middle of a recession, very difficult economic times, many critical issues. But the majority has asked us to come back today to vote on a conglomeration of bills which no one has read. I know the chairman has said the committee has had it posted on the committee site for a few days, but as of Friday, if anyone in America wanted to go to the official Senate Web site or if the media wanted to find out what was in this bill, it was not available to them. Most Members of the Senate--I suspect all except for maybe Tom Coburn and a few others--have not even read this bill. Last week, all of us came in here, and if we didn't take the oath of office ourselves, we listened to others take it many times. That oath didn't say that I was to be here to defend and protect what is right for South Carolina or get everything I could for Oklahoma or Utah or Alaska. It asks us to defend and protect the Constitution, which prescribes a very limited Government, very limited function for the Federal Government. All of our freedoms are dependent on that. Yet we are about the old business today of how can we put together a bill that will almost force a majority of the Senate to vote for it. I know that different Members know a section of this bill, the part that is for their State, and that is good. We need to look out for our States. But we need to look out for our country. We have never been in a time in our country when we have had so much debt and so much spending and so much uncertainty. How can we come here today and say: I got what I want. Do you have what you want? Let's everybody get what they want, and let's ball it up and vote for a bill on which we have had hardly any debate, no amendments are allowed, 1,300 pages that no one has read, 160 bills put together that none of us knows what is in here, and Americans don't know what is in here. We have all been asked to miss church, leave our families, and come here and vote on this bill. As we think about change in our country, I hope we can all think about how we can change this place because the Senate seems to be that last obstacle for everything we need to change, because we cannot continue to pass bills by putting together a little bit of what everybody wants and forgetting what is good for our country. We have been doing this for years, and that is how this country has gotten into so much debt and put such pressure on our economy, taken so much money in taxes out of the private sector that the private sector no longer works. As Senator Coburn has said, I know there are many provisions in this bill that represent years of work and will do a lot of good. But in these times, when people are out of work and we are looking around to how can we find the money we need to fix the problems, if we actually took the time to read what is in this bill, the majority of Americans, I can say this with confidence, would say this is not right. We should not have to pass all of these things that are not needed in order to get those things that are. We know we don't need $5 million for botanical gardens in Hawaii and Florida. That may be a wonderful thing to do, but in these times, when we are asking Americans to sacrifice, when we are mortgaging the future of our children for what we are spending today, it doesn't make any sense to put that in a bill so we could get somebody's vote. We don't need $14 million for tropical research in Panama. Senator Coburn has mentioned other items. We don't need $12 million for the Orchid Museum in Maryland. These are all good things, but this bill is full of these things, and there is nobody who is going to be voting today who knows all the things that are in here. If we continue to do business this way, the change we are hoping for, that we are going to be looking at a historical spectacle in a couple of weeks with the inauguration of a new President that I hope will represent a new generation of thought in America, I plead with my colleagues: I know this is going to sail through today. Everybody has come back to vote because there have been press releases on so many different items in this bill. But if we continue to go through this year where anyone who asks for an amendment or a few moments of debate is made a spectacle of, saying we are going to be here this weekend to vote if you don't give me unanimous consent to vote when I want to, you can't have an amendment, if my colleagues on my side continue to accept this situation, there is going to be no such thing as a Republican Party, and the country we love will continue to deteriorate. I encourage my colleagues to think twice. You may have something that works for you in this bill, but this bill does not work for America.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I have friends and colleagues whom I respect deeply who are on all sides of this bailout issue. One of them just spoke. We all to want do what is right for America, and I believe those who have crafted this plan had pure and noble motives. They want this country to succeed. They want prosperity. I just do not believe that this bill gets the job done. In fact, in the long term, I am convinced it will do more harm than good. We are the Nation that has been called the bastion of freedom, and we are the Nation that has sacrificed blood and treasure to share that freedom with the world. We have fought communism, dictators, and tyranny. We have helped establish democracies and free-market economies across the globe. Because of America, millions of people are now electing their leaders, and millions have been taken out of poverty and enjoyed prosperity. Yet as the blood of our young men and women falls on foreign soil in the defense of freedom, our own Government appears to be leading our country into the pit of socialism. We have seen this Government socialize our education system and make our schools among the worst in the world. We have seen this Government take over most of our health care system, making private insurance less and less affordable. We have seen this Government socialize our energy resources and bring our Nation to its knees by cutting the development of our own oil and natural gas supplies. And now we see this Congress yielding its constitutional obligations to a Federal bureaucracy, giving it the power to control virtually our entire financial system. Americans understand this and they are angry. They are our judge and our jury. They are watching what we are doing, and they will render their verdict based on our actions. If we were honest with the American people and explained the failures that have led to this financial crisis, we might have the credibility to ask our citizens to allow us to borrow another $700 billion in their name to try to fix this problem. But we are not being honest. This problem was not created by our free enterprise system. It was created by us, the Congress and the Federal Government. With good intentions, we made a mess of things. We wanted our economy to grow faster, so we allowed the Federal Reserve to create easy and cheap credit. But this allowed people to borrow and lend irresponsibly. We wanted to help the poor, so we forced banks to make loans to people who could not afford to pay them back. We wanted every American to own a home, so we created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to encourage and guarantee mortgages for more people who could not afford them. And all of these easy mortgages, many of which required no downpayment, inadvertently increased the prices of homes to unsustainable levels and created a massive oversupply of unsold homes. Now the value of homes has fallen, as has the value of the mortgages attached to them. We allowed and even encouraged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to bundle up these risky subprime mortgages so they could be sold as securities to investors in America and all over the world. We guaranteed these institutions with the full faith and credit of the Government so their securities could be sold at above-market rates, allowing them to borrow huge amounts and fuel an explosion in subprime mortgage lending. We also allowed these mortgage giants to use their taxpayer-supported profits to spend over $200 million lobbying Congress to keep us quiet, even when we saw that our brainchild had become a financial Frankenstein. All of our good intentions are now blowing up in our face, and we are asking the American people to bail us out. We must also plead guilty to other misguided policies that have made the situation even worse. Our foolish energy policies have created a huge financial burden on every American family and severely damaged our economy. By not opening our own energy supplies, we are now sending nearly $700 billion a year to other countries to buy oil. This has dried up capital at home and made us dependent on foreign countries for our credit. We have also squandered and wasted hundreds of billions of hard- earned tax dollars on unnecessary and ineffective Federal programs and thousands of wasteful earmarks. Last week, we passed a bill with the highest rate of pork spending in history. While our talk of gloom and doom has heightened the financial panic here and around the world, and while we are asking Americans to bail us out, we are still spending money as if there is no tomorrow. Years of wasteful spending and bad policies have resulted in a huge national debt of nearly $10 trillion. Much of this debt is held by China and Saudi Arabia and other foreign countries that some now say are dictating our financial policies. We know Americans are now the victim of our misguided good intentions, along with our free enterprise system that has been severely damaged and weakened. We know our bad policies have taken the accountability out of our markets by artificially insulating investors from normal risk. This has led to careless lending, careless investing, many bad decisions, and possible criminal activity on Wall Street. While many are blaming Americans and our free enterprise system for the crisis, we know the Government is the root cause of this crisis. I believe this Congress should admit its guilt, prove we have learned from our mistakes, and correct the bad policies immediately that have caused these problems. We should insist the Federal Reserve end the easy money policy. We should repeal the laws that require our banks to make risky loans, and fix the accounting requirements that force banks to undervalue their assets. We should develop a plan to break up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and sell them to private investors who will run them as private companies. We should reduce corporate and capital gains taxes to encourage capital formation and boost asset values. We should also repeal the section of Sarbanes-Oxley that has driven billions of dollars of capital overseas. And we should do even more to grow our economy and lessen our dependence on foreign countries. We should immediately pass a law that expedites the development of our oil and natural gas reserves to help relieve the burden of high prices and gas shortages for our families. We should immediately adopt a freeze on nonsecurity discretionary spending and pass a moratorium on earmarks until we fix this wasteful and corrupting system. We should sacrifice our political pork as we ask taxpayers to sacrifice for our mistakes. We have caused a terrible financial mess, and we must honestly tell the American people that whether we pass this huge bailout or not, there will likely be suffering and pain for our great country. But Americans and our free market economy are resilient. And with fewer misguided laws and less onerous regulations, we will get through this crisis, as Americans have many times before. But we must tell Americans the truth. Congress says it was deregulation and capitalist greed that has run wild and undermined our financial system. Instead of reducing our role in the economy, we are trying to use this crisis to expand our power to control and manage the free enterprise system. We are here saying that our banks and mortgage companies have stopped lending money, that people can't get loans to buy cars, homes, or to run a business, and that our economy of the United States is on the verge of collapse. We are telling people not to worry because we are going to rescue them with their own money. Congress is going to allow the Treasury Secretary to take $700 billion from taxpayers to buy bad loans and investments from anyone he chooses anywhere in the world. This, we say, will free up capital, get the credit markets working again, and put our economy back on track. But this Congress refuses to change our Nation's monetary policy that created the cheap money and inflated the housing bubble. We refuse to change the accounting laws and regulations, even though they are making the problem worse. We refuse to lower capital gains and other taxes to attract capital and promote growth. We refuse to repeal Sarbanes-Oxley, even though it hasn't worked and it has cost our economy billions. And we refuse to expedite the development of America's energy resources, even though it would help every American and grow our economy. None of these things are even on the table for discussion. We are telling the American people to hand over $700 billion or the world economy is going to collapse. This is why people are so upset. It is because Congress is being dishonest and arrogant. We are not being honest with them about how we got into this mess, and we are not being honest with them about what we need to get out of it. I strongly oppose this legislation. It takes our country in the wrong direction. It forces innocent taxpayers to bail out Government policies and Wall Street mistakes. It asks the American people to take a leap of faith and trust people who have consistently misled them. I am deeply saddened by the tone of this debate. I am afraid many of the supporters of this bill have bullied people into supporting it, using fear. There may be good reason for fear, but I think most people will agree that some of the statements have been reckless and irresponsible. I hope I am wrong and this bill will truly solve the problem. Let me say again that I know every one of my colleagues is doing what they believe is right for America. But based on what I know, I cannot in good conscience support it. I know the Senate is going to pass it tonight, and I can only hope the House will defeat it so we can pursue better alternatives. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to honor Paul Weyrich, a dear friend, and a man who has spent the past 44 years fighting to protect the freedom and liberty enjoyed by Americans today. Throughout his adult life, Paul Weyrich has actively advocated for conservative policies based on our founding principles. From his days as a young college Republican and foot soldier in Barry Goldwater's 1964 Presidential campaign to his tireless efforts on and around Capitol Hill, Paul has been an instrumental force in the conservative movement of both yesterday and today. With courage and conviction, he has declared the importance of family values, religious freedom and limited government. History will judge us not on our titles but on the lasting ideas we advance and institutions we create. I have the honor of chairing the Senate Steering Committee, which owes its creation in 1974 to an idea born in the mind of an enterprising staffer named Paul Weyrich. After helping to found the Senate Steering Committee, Paul went on to found the Heritage Foundation with Edwin J. Feulner in 1973. Paul also founded the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, CSFC, which later became the Free Congress Foundation. Paul now serves as chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation. And Paul's leadership, uniting religious conservatives of all faiths, has made the social conservative movement one of the most effective movements in modern history. Finally, I would also have to add that not only has Paul dedicated his life to serving the conservative movement, his wonderful family, and his Nation, but he has also dedicated his life to serving God as a leader in his church. Senators and conservative leaders will come and go. Most of us will be barely remembered. But years from now when a new crop of conservatives is charged with advancing our cause, the sword they will wield will be the institutions left to them by previous generations. Many of them, from the numerous coalitions to the Steering Committee to the mighty Free Congress Foundation and the Heritage Foundation, owe their creation to Paul Weyrich. I want to personally express my gratitude to Paul for his friendship and for all that he has done to move the conservative cause forward. Paul's hard work and dedication have inspired me and countless others in the fight to protect liberty and to secure America's future.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I do appreciate the leadership on this bill. I am particularly honored to serve with John Warner. He has been involved with so many great victories here, great leadership. He will certainly be missed. I don't want to be the one to rain on the parade here because I certainly know there are some good improvements in this bill. Obviously, there is some disagreement whether this bill should go through. The Heritage Foundation calls it the biggest earmark in history. We do have to recognize that with this, on top of the over $20 billion in earmarks we passed last week, the American people have to be looking in on us and asking, What are they thinking? If we adopt this cloture motion, we are setting up 30 hours of debate on what I am sure to many is an important bill, but this is in a time when we are talking about a financial crisis of proportions we have not seen since the Great Depression. We have instilled panic in the American people, and people are working around the clock to determine whether we should spend $700 billion to intrude into the private markets. To take 30 hours during this time is to suggest to the American people it is business as usual here while we have a crisis and panic on the outside. I encourage my colleagues to let's put this off until later. Whether you support it or you don't, this is not the time to tell the American people one thing and to proceed as it it is business as usual. We should not be spending 30 hours of debate on an Amtrak bill, with the pork that has been added to it, at a time when we need to be addressing a crisis in America. I thank the leadership for all their work on this bill.

Mr. DeMINT. I yield the floor. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.) Mrs. BOXER Mr. President, due to the Jewish holidays, I am unable to attend the cloture vote today on the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act. However, I want to take this opportunity to express my support for this important piece of legislation that will have a significant impact on rail safety for my State of California and our Nation. On September 12, a Union Pacific freight train collided head on with a Metrolink commuter train during rush hour in Chatsworth, CA. This tragedy claimed 25 lives, and injured 135 people, many of whom have sustained lifelong injuries. This was a senseless tragedy that did not have to occur. Several safety measures could have been employed to help avert this tragedy, including the implementation of positive train control, PTC, systems on single tracks shared by commuter and freight rail. The National Transportation Safety Board has called for the implementation of positive train control systems since the inception of its Most Wanted Transportation Safety Improvements list in 1990. In its most recent list, the NTSB states: The board believes . . . positive train control is particularly important in places where passenger trains and freight trains both operate. That is why I joined Senator Feinstein in introducing legislation after the accident that would require positive train control systems to be implemented by 2014 nationwide and in areas of high risk by 2012. While I would have preferred that the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act mandate positive train control in high risk areas by 2012, I am pleased this bill takes a step in the right direction by giving the Federal Railroad Administration, FRA, the authority to require the implementation of PTC sooner than 2015. I also believe the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act makes key advances to address other necessary safety improvements. In addition to requiring the implementation of positive train control systems on rail lines used by passenger trains and trains carrying hazardous materials, the bill authorizes $250 million in grants for States and railroad carriers to aid in the deployment of PTC systems and other rail safety technology. The legislation also revises work hours for train crews and signal employees by requiring an uninterrupted off-duty period of 10 hours between shifts, a total monthly cap of 276 hours for train crew work hours, and creates the first mandatory ``weekend'' for railroad employees by requiring consecutive days off. The Senate has an opportunity to vote this week on the first comprehensive rail safety bill since 1994 and send a clear message to Americans that we have taken action to protect the public by making rail safety a priority. In light of the recent rail tragedy in southern California, there is no excuse for failing to pass rail safety legislation. This month, I hosted a Commerce Committee briefing on the rail accident. What became clear at this briefing was that the FRA has had a lax attitude toward rail safety oversight in recent years and that Congress must act now to assure the public's concerns and ensure the safety of commuter rail. In the wake of the California rail tragedy, this is not the time to have a partisan debate over increased regulation of rail safety intended to protect passengers. Commuter rail systems across the nation need resources and oversight by FRA to keep Americans safe. As gas prices continue to rise and more and more families turn to public transit, we must take additional steps to ensure the safety of our commuters. Our colleagues in the House have acted in support of this legislation. Now is the time for the Senate to act so that we can begin to take the steps necessary make our rail commuter and freight rail lines safer. I look forward to continuing to work with my Senate colleagues on this important issue in the next Congress. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)