Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning. I have a parliamentary inquiry: Who in this Senate has the last word on when votes are scheduled?

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I commend Senator Domenici on his passion for energy and what we need to do to preserve the future of our country. I have had a chance, as many Senators I am sure have, as well as Americans all over the country, to look in on the debate about energy this week. Frankly, if it were not so serious and perhaps sad, it would be entertaining. I have been entertained to see my Democratic colleagues bobbing and weaving and trying to change the subject and deflect the attention from the real needs, trying to obscure 20 years of obstruction on developing American energy and to shift the blame to big oil, to speculators or President Bush instead of talking about the real subject. It is sad that this is probably the most important issue of this generation. We know it is hurting Americans every day, who are paying more and more for gasoline, families who are just making ends meet, increasingly having to make the decision of whether to buy the gas they need to go to work or even buy the right food they need for their children. This is a serious crisis. Yet we are playing games here on this very important issue. The Democratic majority will not even allow an open and honest debate. They will not allow Republicans to bring amendments down because they fear their Members will have to take a vote to show America where they stand on the issue. If we had an open and honest debate, America would find out that Democrats would prefer the prices to be high; that based on the input from the environmental extremists who tell them the higher the price is, the less fossil fuels we will use, that is better for the environment. The problem is, over the last 20 years, as the Democrats have obstructed the development of nuclear energy, they have obstructed the development of America's own oil and natural gas supplies. Our dependence on foreign oil has gone up. We have burned more coal than other countries that have developed clean alternatives such as nuclear. The environmental extremists have actually hurt the environment. They have made our country hostage to other countries that would like to harm us. And when it comes to the point where we need to decide what we are going to do as a country, the majority leader will not even allow us amendments. He wants to ram it through and change the subject and go on to the next thing. That is where we are today. We have put in the middle of this the housing bill, which, like the Energy bill, the majority leader will not allow any amendments to. This is a huge, unprecedented bill, putting on the line $300 billion that can be used for mortgage companies to unload bad loans onto the taxpayers, making the Federal Government the owner of mortgages in real estate for the first time, and crossing that line between freedom and socialism where we actually get so involved in the private sector and the managing of the financial markets that our country is moving more toward a European style of socialism than the America we know. We have a bill here that on one side adds nearly $1 billion of taxes on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and then, on the other side, is asking America to bail them out because they are not making enough money. That is the kind of logic Congress is using. And we do not want to debate it. We want to get this thing done immediately. The majority leader scheduled a vote that would come out on Saturday. He did not give us the courtesy of offering one amendment. Then he is demanding that we shorten the time period so he can have a Friday vote and let folks go home. I have been entertained by the suggestion that I have actually scheduled votes tomorrow. As I understand it, and the Parliamentarian may want to correct me, there is only one person in this Senate who can schedule a vote. That is the majority leader on the Democratic side, and he scheduled a vote on Saturday and will not change it in order to give us an amendment. There are a lot of amendments that could improve this bill. Setting up a slush fund so local communities and their agencies can buy real estate and rehab it and sell it is a bad idea. It is a slush fund that is not going to be accountable. It puts those governments in the real estate business. I wish to have an amendment to remove that, and to remove the new taxes that are going to cost everybody who buys a home after we pass this bill. Everybody is going to pay more to get a mortgage because this bill adds taxes to it. The folks who are pushing it do not want you to know that. The President had threatened to veto it over this bad policy, but he decided to change his mind because he felt we so much needed to provide the backup for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So because we cannot have the amendments that we need to improve the bill, I asked for one amendment that is basic and common sense. We have seen in the Wall Street Journal and publications all over the country the growing suspicion that the fact that the reforms that were needed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the last 10 years were not even talked about in Congress because of so many political contributions to Congressmen and Senators. Now, we do not like to think that about ourselves, but there is a reason Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spent over $200 million over the last 10 years on campaign contributions to those of us here in the House and the Senate, and they got something for it. They got left alone. They grew out of control. They grew into a big monster where now we say they are too big to fail. If we let them fail, they are going to bring down the whole American economy. So we have got to put the American taxpayer behind them with an open checkbook to write any check that is needed to keep them in business. That is what we are being told in this bill right now. If we are going to do that, if we are going to make the American taxpayer stand behind those companies, then there is one commonsense thing we can do to keep it more open and honest. These organizations that are now guaranteed by the American taxpayer should no longer be able to spend millions of dollars buying influence in Congress. That is a conflict of interest. My amendment would simply stop the political activity, the lobbying and the contributions of these organizations which are now a part of the Federal Government because of this explicit guarantee. That is the only amendment I asked for. We could have voted on it yesterday and finished the housing bill yesterday if the majority leader had wanted it. We could vote on it today and move straight to passage. I have offered the majority leader several options. It does not even have to be a part of this bill if he thinks it is going to delay it. All I have asked for is a straight-up vote on this bill that would eliminate lobbying by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and we could do it sometime before the end of the session. We could vote on housing immediately, right now, send it to the President unchanged, so there would be no delay. But the majority leader is so afraid of asking his Democratic colleagues to vote on this bill that would ban lobbying, that benefits us so much in our campaigns, he does not want them to take that vote in public view. So, instead, he is going to keep everyone here Saturday and try to say I am scheduling this vote when, in fact, he is scheduling that vote because he does not want the lobbying and the campaign contributions to stop from these organizations which are now basically being backed up by the full faith and credit of the American people. That is what is going on here. It would be entertaining if it were not so sad. Again, the blame is trying to be deflected to someone else so the American people cannot see where people stand. Instead of having amendments we can vote on, and instead of seeing where people stand on the lobbying of these organizations the American people now have to stand behind, they are trying to blame it on the fact that we are going to have a Saturday vote. Over half the American people do not want us to pass this bill. They deserve a voice in this Chamber. And if there is no one else who is going to stand up and speak against it, I will, because it is wrong to pass a bill of this magnitude so quickly, 700 pages that have not been read by one Senator here. It has so many flaws in it that they want to get it off the floor before people figure out what is in it. It is a mistake to pass this bill so quickly. I am not going to allow it to go through today. We are going to be here tomorrow for a vote because people are afraid to show the American people what they stand for. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I commend Senator Grassley for focusing again on the importance of lower taxes and promoting a better economy and higher standard of living in America. It is disturbing, as we talk about energy and high gas prices, to hear from our Democratic colleagues in the House that they are actually considering raising taxes on gasoline 10 cents or more per gallon at a time when it is already a crushing cost to Americans on energy. The energy debate has been very helpful. I think for years Americans have known, at least many Americans, that the Democratic Party has blocked the development of energy supplies, America's own energy supplies, from the time of Jimmy Carter stopping nuclear generation to President Clinton vetoing the legislation that would have opened some oil reserves in Alaska, to constant votes by our Democratic colleagues to stop the opening of oil and natural gas which is plentiful in America. Americans do not trust Congress to fix this because they know it is the inaction by Congress that has caused the gas prices, and we see that the Democratic leadership is going to do everything they can to keep amendments and an open and honest debate about real energy development in America from happening. Housing The same thing has happened on another bill that is going to be interjected into this energy debate, this massive housing bill, this massive mortgage bailout that is going to come back to the Senate floor for a vote. This is another situation where the American people know that the mortgage crisis, the foreclosure crisis, the problems with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are caused by incompetence and gross negligence by this Congress and past administrations. We suspect, and there is every evidence, that part of that negligence has come from the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby Members of Congress and other watchdog groups to keep them from focusing on the reforms that were needed. When this housing bill comes back, I have proposed one amendment. I asked for one amendment in this process, that if the American taxpayers put their money on the line to back these private companies, that these private companies should no longer be able to spend millions of dollars lobbying Members of Congress to keep them from implementing the reforms that are so important. Last night I made an offer to the majority leader. I suggested we could have one vote under a time agreement to allow my amendment to prohibit lobbying and political donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We could have been done with the bill last night. If the majority leader tabled the amendment, the bill would have been passed and sent to the President last night. But I do not think he wanted his Members to have to vote on that. If the amendment had been adopted, the bill would have been immediately sent to the House, passed and sent to the President, probably today. The only thing that prevented this from happening was the objection of the majority leader last night, because the majority leader was intent on blocking this amendment to prohibit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from lobbying. The bill will likely pass the Senate on Saturday and will not reach the President until next week. So the argument that my one amendment is slowing this down is not true. Let me state again one more time, to be clear. This Senator was prepared to vote on the housing bill last night. I do not support the bill. I do not think it should become law. I simply wanted one amendment. My constituents sent me here to Washington to clean up this place. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past decade to block commonsense reform, which could have been prevented. We could have prevented the debacle that we are faced with now if Congress had not been blind to the problem. But because the leader was intent on filibustering my amendment, blocking me from doing what my constituents sent me here to do, the housing bill will be delayed until next week. This is fine with me, because there is a lot wrong with the bill. But the decision to delay the bill was made by the majority leader and him alone. I wish to offer one more opportunity here for the majority to expedite the housing bill and to give me the one vote on this amendment and then we can proceed to a final vote. Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3221 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes the consideration of the housing bill, the pending Reid amendment be withdrawn and the only amendment in order be a DeMint amendment which I will send to the desk. This is a measure to address lobbying by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

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

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Chair. I can see I have more to say than I have time to say it. Let me close by encouraging my colleagues. There is no need for this issue to be partisan. Clearly, if we are going to put hard-working taxpayer dollars behind our bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we should not allow them to continue to throw millions of dollars around for political activities. It just makes good common sense. On a bill that is this large and this important and that probably not one Senator has read even half of, the opportunity to have at least one amendment and a limited time for debate seems to be a small request. Unfortunately, the majority is not going to give us any amendments, and apparently they are going to turn a blind eye to this obvious problem on which the Wall Street Journal and news media all over the country have been focusing. The American people know about it. I think they would trust the Senate much more to make the proper reforms for housing and mortgages and Fannie and Freddie Mac if they could see that we were eliminating a conflict of interest that has clearly existed for a number of years. I thank the Presiding Officer and encourage my colleagues to ask the majority leader to reconsider and give us the opportunity to have a vote on this one amendment, and then we could speed the housing bill through. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, the majority clearly will not permit this or any other amendment on the bill. He says he does not want anything to delay it. As I have already pointed out, however, I think his own obstruction is delaying the bill. I wish to make one more proposal. I will explain it, and if the majority is willing, then I will read the technical language. But I am very willing to offer a unanimous consent request to move immediately to a final vote on the housing bill, and then once the energy debate is completed, that my amendment, then in bill form, be allowed a straight- up vote in the Senate. This may be several weeks from now. But if the concern by the majority is that my amendment would slow the bill down, they should certainly agree that if we can move to housing and pass it straight up, and finish the energy debate, whatever time that is finished, then we could have a simple vote at the scheduling of the majority leader to vote on this lobbying amendment. I would be glad to put this in unanimous consent form if the majority is interested in entertaining this. If I could get some indication from the speaker or the leader over there. Would you be interested in that unanimous consent request?

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Senator. Clearly there is no need to continue to try to get this housing bill expedited. It is clear my Democratic colleagues do not support this reform, and apparently they are going to do everything they can to protect their relationship with these Government entities. The majority leader suggested yesterday that he would be happy to join me in sending a letter to these two entities, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, to request that they be more transparent in their lobbying. Well, I am not interested in sending a letter to the management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That would be as effective as sending a letter, which has been suggested by my Democratic colleague, to Saudi Arabia demanding lower gas prices. I am not interested in transparency in their lobbying or political donations. The lobbying contracts need to be terminated and their PACs should be disbanded. The majority leader disagrees. In fact, his staff sent out a blast e- mail to their lobbyist friends asking for help in defeating my amendment. I want to protect taxpayers and end the culture of corruption in Washington, but I am afraid in this case, the majority clearly does not want to join me. All I am requesting is one amendment on a 694-page bill that spends anywhere from $25 billion to hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money to bail out two companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I believe my amendment is essential to considering the way Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have spread their wealth around Washington for years to buy Government influence and to cover up their problems. The housing legislation that will be before us authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to use taxpayer money to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but it does not include an immediate end to their lobbying and political activities. If American taxpayers are forced to bail out or buy out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, their lobbying and political activities should stop. Our Nation has a longstanding tradition of preventing American tax dollars from being used for lobbying and for soliciting and making campaign contributions. There is no doubt that this housing legislation crosses that line. Under current law, the Department of Treasury cannot retain high-powered lobbyists or make political contributions to candidates. This rule should apply to Fannie and Freddie. There may have been some doubt as to whether a government guarantee existed for Fannie and Freddie before, but now with this legislation, that guarantee is made very explicit. They are, in effect, government entities and should be treated as such. The Politico newspaper recently reported on how Senators and Congressmen are benefiting politically from propping up these two mortgage giants. The article said: If you want to know how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have survived scandal and crisis, consider this: Over the past decade, they have spent nearly $200 million on lobbying and campaign contributions. But the political tentacles of the mortgage giants extend far beyond their checkbooks. The two government-chartered companies run a highly sophisticated lobbying operation with deep-pocketed lobbyists in Washington and scores of local Fannie- and Freddie-sponsored homeowner groups ready to pressure lawmakers back home. One thing that should get our colleagues' attention, this chart is a copy of an invitation by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and other groups for a big party at the Democratic National Convention. There is one very similar to this for the Republicans. They will continue to lavish entertainment on those of us in Congress until we stop it. National Public Radio reported that in the first 3 months of the year alone, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spent a combined total of $3.5 million on lobbying and hired 42 outside firms. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been such prolific donors to political parties, candidates, and PACs that they are the No. 1 and No. 3 top contributors in the mortgage industry and rank in the top 100 political donors of all time. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Reserving the right to object, if I might ask the leader a question, the filing of the cloture motion on the housing bill at this point means there will be a Saturday vote?

Mr. DeMINT. Friday, if all the time is used. I would like to make the Senator aware that I believe we could arrange a unanimous consent to shorten the time, if you would allow one amendment that would prohibit Fannie May and Freddie Mack or organizations from lobbying during this time of taxpayer-secured funding. So we are prepared to shorten the time, if you are willing to allow that unanimous consent.

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I rise to speak on the bill being considered at this time, the foreign aid bill we call PEPFAR. I would like to speak about it in relation to the overall condition of America, America's economy, so that we can put it in context. These are very difficult times for our country, we all know. It seems the news keeps getting worse. Obviously, we are at war. As the situation improves in Iraq, Afghanistan seems to be deteriorating. We have to keep our focus on the terrorist problem around the world. Our economy also seems to be failing or at least slowing at this time. The energy situation is crushing Americans. Just filling up their cars and trucks with gasoline every day becomes more burdensome. People are really hurting. It is very difficult to make ends meet paycheck to paycheck. The mortgage companies and banks are experiencing extreme difficulty, making it harder for people to buy homes and to stay in their homes. Now we hear that the government-sponsored enterprises we call Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are the largest credit organizations in the world, are experiencing difficulty and that we may need to step in this year and bail them out to the tune of $40, $50 billion this year. Families are struggling. Any family that has debt and can't make ends meet, can't meet their expenses, would not consider going out and buying a new gas-guzzling SUV. We wouldn't do it. Why, at a time when our country is in debt and, as far as we can see, expenses will be more than revenues, would we create the biggest foreign aid bill in history and borrow more money, $50 billion, and send it all around the world to some countries that are much better off than we are? We are doing this in the name of generosity and compassion, helping countries in Africa with the epidemic of AIDS. I supported the program in 2003, and it was a huge, expensive program at the time of $15 billion. Because it has been focused and somewhat accountable, it has been somewhat effective. But now we come back and increase that budget over 300 percent, expand it from countries it was originally designated for to the point where now money is going to the United Nations, to China, India, other countries. Some of these countries are much better off than we are as a nation. This chart will help my colleagues focus on what we are dealing with and what we should consider as we talk about spending more money at a time when we are at war and our economy is in difficulty and the credit industry is in trouble. Historically, we have been at about 20 percent of spending as the Federal Government in relation to our total economy, what we call GDP, or gross domestic product. Beginning now, projected spending is increasing dramatically because of retirees and those going on Social Security and Medicare and the fact that younger workers are not coming in at nearly the rate people are retiring. Our expenses as a country are increasing dramatically and will for the foreseeable future. We have no plans to meet this type of spending increase and no place to get the revenue. We are already in so much debt that some of the countries holding our debt are trying to get rid of it. Yet we continue to spend money. This doesn't even reflect all of the expenses we are going to have to continue the war on terror and supplemental emergency spending, such as floods. None of that is in here. So spending is going to increase dramatically. By 2050, which seems a long way off, it is going to go from around 20 to over 40. During that period, we continue to see astronomical increases in spending, with no plans to curtail it. Perhaps even worse, we need to address our debt. That affects the value of our dollar, interest rates, and the money we have to spend on other priorities. We have never seen anything like this. This is not made up. This comes from the Committee on the Budget, as well as the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget from the administration. This is real. In 2007, Government debt was 37 percent of our total economy. If we continue spending at the current rate, the U.S. Government's debt will be at 109 percent--larger than our total economy--in a little over 20 years. There is no way we can maintain a successful economy and be the leader of the world with this scenario. Some of our colleagues have rightly said in private that this is a crisis; we could be close to a meltdown as a nation. Yet what we are doing here this week I consider obscene and completely unacceptable. It is almost unthinkable that we would come in here, at a time when we need to be addressing an energy problem or looking at how we are going to deal with Social Security and Medicare and stay more competitive as a nation and keep jobs here, and talk about expanding the largest foreign aid program in history, with no thought of where we are. The world has to look on us and wonder: What are they thinking? They are running out of energy. Yet their laws keep them from developing their own energy supplies. They are in huge debt. Yet they keep giving money away to other countries that are eating our lunch economically, such as China. What are we thinking? The fact is, we are thinking about the next election instead of the next generation. We have heard comments such as: There is no need to go after any energy in America; it will take 5 or 10 years. That is what President Clinton said when he vetoed a bill that would have given us oil supplies from Alaska 10 years ago. We would today be getting as much oil from Alaska as we are having to buy from Venezuela if we didn't have a President who said we didn't need to be thinking 10 years in the future. I say we need to be thinking 50 years in the future. We don't need to be borrowing more and more money and charging it to our children and grandchildren. This bill we are talking about this week is all with borrowed money. It is not our generosity. None of us are going to give a penny to help Africa or other nations. We are going to charge it to our children and grandchildren and walk out of here and feel good about ourselves. And we should be ashamed of ourselves. We should be more accountable to the American people. This is a devastating chart to look at, yet we ignore it every day. Every spending bill that is put on this floor passes with flying colors, and it seems to be an insult to this body to even suggest we might cut the budget to some realistic level. I have an amendment we will vote on in a few minutes that takes the level of spending from $50 billion to $35 billion over 5 years. That is still way too much, and we should not be doing it. It is still more than the President asked for. He asked for $30 billion. What it is, is the amount of money that the Congressional Budget Office said that no matter how hard you tried with this PEPFAR Program, you can't spend more than $35 billion effectively in 5 years; without wasting money, you can't spend more than $35 billion. There is no reason this Senate can't say: Wait a minute. We are in financial trouble as a country. We still want to help people around the world. Let's bring it back to a level that at least is reasonable in the sense that it is all we can spend without wasting it. My amendment does not change anything about the bill except moves the level from $50 billion to $35 billion. This will not take one dime away from AIDS treatment in Africa because if we keep it at $50 billion or $60 billion or $100 billion, we cannot get any more money to the people we are trying to help. So if we are at $35 billion, we are at the level that is going to help the people we are intending. In fact, it is still more than twice what we started this program with only a few years ago. I encourage my colleagues to take a moment to think about America and where we are. It is wonderful to be compassionate and generous. But this bill is not about compassion and generosity because none of this money is coming from us or our salaries, and we are not paying for one penny of it by cutting another program or making a sacrifice somewhere else. We are not being honest about where the money is going because it is no longer an AIDS to Africa program, it is an ``anything anywhere in the world'' program. We at least need to say we have the discipline to bring it back to the level that is the maximum amount our own services tell us we can spend. If we cannot do this, if Members of this Senate cannot take that one, small step of responsibility, we should not be in this body. We certainly should not go out to the American people and pretend we have done something good for them around the world because we have not. We are doing business as usual here, spending like there is no tomorrow, and there might not be if these same folks stay in the Senate and the Congress and continue to spend our money here. I plead with my colleagues to look at reality, to look at where we are as a country, in debt and spending. Please, let's demonstrate to the American people that we can trim in one place--this massive foreign aid bill, giving money, which we are borrowing, all over the world-- that we can, we have the self-discipline. We can walk out of here and say: We at least trimmed it back to the maximum amount they said we could spend. I hope some of my colleagues are listening. I appeal to them to show one grain, one little bit of sanity here as we approach the future, to take this bill back down to a level that is at least vaguely responsible. With that, Madam President, I yield back.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, since the President introduced his bill to reauthorize the PEPFAR program several months ago, a lot has changed. Our economy has continued to slow. We have passed a housing bill that allows up to $300 billion of risky loans to be added to the Federal debt. We have now been told by Secretary Paulson that it is likely we will have to come up with $40 to $50 billion in the next year to prop up the Government-sponsored enterprises of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I appeal to my colleagues to consider reducing the amount of authorization for this PEPFAR bill to $35 billion. The Congressional Budget Office tells us we cannot spend more than $35 billion over a 5-year period without wasting, that the mechanisms are not there. For us, in the face of what we are dealing with, to go beyond what the Congressional Budget Office tells us we can spend and authorize $50 billion at this time is irresponsible. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment to reduce the authorization amount to $35 billion. I retain the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, with due respect to my colleague, apparently there is nothing magic about $50 billion, because today we arbitrarily cut $2 billion and sent it somewhere else. Again, the Congressional Budget Office says that nothing will be sacrificed. No aid will be taken away from Africans with AIDS and others we are trying to help, because within the 5-year period we cannot spend $50 billion effectively and efficiently. Let's show some restraint in this body and at least move it to the maximum figure we can do effectively.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, the motion to table involves two amendments. It is important my colleagues understand what is involved. The current PEPFAR Program focuses on 15 countries with epidemics of AIDS and malaria. The current authorization allows them to work in 110 countries in which they are working now, but the focus has been part of making this program successful. My amendment would limit the focus of the current PEPFAR bill on the Senate floor to the authorized countries in the first bill so the money is not spread all over the world to countries that do not need it as much as Africa and the others. But the other amendment, and the reason this is being tabled, is it proposes that we do not allow PEPFAR funds to be used through the U.N. Global Fund for forced abortions and forced sterilization in China and other countries. The law of the land in this country is that our taxpayer dollars are not used for forced abortion. All this does is make sure the money in PEPFAR does not end up with programs like they have in China that force abortions. I encourage my colleagues to vote no against tabling these amendments so we would be sure that PEPFAR funds are being used where and the way that they are intended to be used. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to speak on the rather large foreign aid bill we are addressing this week in the Senate. I have already expressed my concern, and I will do it again. As the Senator from Texas was just talking about, we have a serious energy problem in our country today. Americans are hurting, and it is probably not a very good time to be talking about sending billions of American dollars around the world, despite how good the cause may be. Nevertheless, we are going to be voting on various amendments related to what we call PEPFAR, which began as an aid to Africa bill, and that is one of the issues I wish to address this morning. The PEPFAR Program that the President started in 2003, which I supported, took $15 billion over 5 years and focused it on the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Other countries were allowed to participate. The primary focus was on AIDS and malaria. There has been some success, so the President would like to reauthorize that program. Unfortunately, as it has worked its way through Congress, it has gone from a $15 billion expenditure to a $50 billion expenditure, sending more money overseas than we spend ourselves on research for AIDS in America or breast cancer or juvenile diabetes and the problems we have here. We are sending the money overseas. This bill does not go according to its label anymore. This is no longer an aid to Africa bill. It expands across three more continents, including China and other countries that might be better off financially than we are at this point. I proposed an amendment to limit the scope of the PEPFAR bill to its original intent, which included Africa and other authorized countries in the original bill, so that we can focus these dollars in a way that would allow them to work rather than allow them to create a global fund that spreads the money so thin that we are no longer effective in any area. The vote at 11 also includes a very important amendment that is attached to the amendment to keep the focus on the countries in the original bill. This amendment would prohibit PEPFAR funds from going to organizations that are involved with forced abortions and forced sterilization in countries such as China. Again, countries such as China don't need our money, particularly at a time when they are actually much better off financially than we are. American taxpayers should not be forced to send their money to organizations in China that force abortions. We may have people who stand up and say this is not going to happen, but $2 billion in the first year of this program is designated to the U.N. Global Fund. It is indicated that such sums that would be spent over the next 4 years would be allocated to it, which means it is likely that there is going to be $10 billion over 5 years that goes to the U.N. Global Fund. All one has to do is go to the Global Fund Web site, go to China, and see that there is over $70 million in grants that has gone to the organization in China that actually enforces the one-child policy, enforces the forced abortion policy in China. The law of the land here in this country is that we don't use taxpayer dollars for forced abortions anywhere in the world. Actually, the PEPFAR bill itself prohibits those funds. Yet there is a loophole in that as funds from PEPFAR go to the U.N. Global Fund, they will go to organizations such as we have in China that are involved in forced abortions. Some of my colleagues will say this is unnecessary; it is already the law. If it is, I hope they will go along with this amendment and support it and not vote to table it this morning. This is a very real and serious problem. The U.N. Global Fund is very well known for supporting organizations in China and elsewhere that promote forced abortions and forced sterilization on women. This is not only an abortion issue; it is a human rights issue that we all need to stand up and support. So as we head to 11 o'clock, I wish to remind my colleagues again, because sometimes we confuse so many things together here that people don't know what we are voting on. The majority leader has moved to table my amendment--the amendment that says we can't add three new continents to this bill--because he knows that attached to it is this amendment that would prohibit funds from being used for forced abortions. The whole reason for the big debacle we had here in the Senate last Friday where people were brought back late is because the majority leader would not allow me to offer this amendment that would prohibit taxpayer dollars from being used for forced abortions in China and other places in the world. So this is a very important vote at 11 o'clock. My colleagues need to know that if they vote to table my amendment, they are voting to do two things. First, they are voting to divert funds from this Africa fund and other countries that were authorized in the first bill--the countries that are suffering from widespread epidemics--they will be voting to divert these funds to countries where there are very isolated problems. The money will ultimately be spread around the world to organizations that waste this money instead of focusing it where we can really make a difference. Also, voting to table this amendment means you are supporting using PEPFAR funds, which are supposed to be for AIDS in Africa, you are supporting using those funds to promote forced abortions and forced sterilization in China and in other countries. So I want my colleagues to be clear. I am not sure how the majority leader and others will present this motion to table, but the reason they are attempting to table it is because they want to stop the amendment that would not allow these funds to be used through the U.N. Global Fund to organizations in China that promote forced abortion. So I urge my colleagues to vote no--to vote no to table this amendment on these amendments so they can receive a fair vote in the Senate. With that, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for a few moments as in morning business on my amendment that will be voted on at 11.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to speak against this foreign aid bill and in favor of a couple of amendments that will restore some integrity to it. I wish to make it clear that I believe this legislation aims to do something very important. A lot of people are suffering in Africa with AIDS, and the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief--or PEPFAR, as we call it--is designed to provide treatment and prevention assistance to those in need. This is a program I voted for in 2003, and it is something I think every American would consider a worthy cause. But the simple fact is, we cannot afford every worthy cause around the world. Our budget is broken and our Nation is headed toward financial collapse. Yet this bill spends $50 billion, which is more than a 300- percent increase over the original $15 billion authorization. None of this money is paid for. Instead, it is all borrowed money. It passes the bill on to our children and grandchildren. This is not generosity; I am afraid it is thievery. So we have conflicting goals. On one hand, we want to help people suffering in Africa. On the other hand, we want to balance our budget and prevent people from suffering in America. As Ronald Reagan said, ``America is a great Nation because America is a good Nation.'' Americans have always prided themselves on reaching out to people in need, and we should do so. However, if we bankrupt our own country, we will no longer be able to extend a helping hand to others. That is why I am offering an amendment--this first amendment, No. 5077--to reduce the spending in this bill from $50 billion to $35 billion. This would still provide a more than 100 percent increase over the original program while maintaining some integrity to our budget process. The Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning, has an amendment that would reauthorize the program at current levels with no increase in spending. That is something I support because at a time when we need to be dramatically reducing the size and scope of government, just keeping the program at its current spending levels is generous. My amendment would allow for the program to actually grow from $15 billion to $35 billion. This is still way too much money, in my opinion, but it would save American taxpayers $15 billion over the next 5 years, which is no small amount of money. Besides saving Americans money, this amendment would not actually take a thing away from people in Africa who benefit from this program. The fact is, this foreign aid program cannot spend $50 billion on its intended purposes. According to the Congressional Budget Office, PEPFAR can only spend $35 billion over the next 5 years to meet the needs of those who are suffering. Our aid workers in many African nations have said as much, and their statements are backed up by the Congressional Budget Office's own estimate of this budget. In reality, the money that cannot be spent to directly treat and prevent the spread of AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria will be siphoned off for other things authorized in this bill, none of which are directly related to the prevention or treatment of these three diseases. For example, the bill authorizes the expenditure of funds to provide legal services, empower women, ensure safe drinking water and sanitation, provide treatment for alcohol abuse, and address the inheritance rights of women and girls, and study transportation patterns, just to name a few. In addition, some of this $35 billion would be siphoned off to build an even larger bureaucracy here in the United States. One U.S. aid worker in Africa said: We spend 4 months writing our Country Operation Plan only to send it to Washington and have it rewritten without our input. Four months of effort for no reason certainly sounds like a waste of effort, and it diminishes our success. Unfortunately, as we have all seen around here, the bigger the pot of money gets, the more waste and fraud we have, and accountability completely disappears. If we really care about those suffering from AIDS, we need to ensure that as many dollars as possible reach the people who are truly in need. The measure of America's greatness is not found in the amount of money we provide but in the effectiveness of our efforts. I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment. It saves $15 billion without taking anything away from people who are hurting in Africa. Most importantly, it restores some honesty and integrity to this bill. Another problem with this bill is that it expands the scope of this program to new countries that were not part of the original program. The bill explicitly adds central Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America to the list of PEPFAR's focused countries. The bill also contains vague language expanding the program to other nations. This is yet another example of the dishonesty of Congress. We say this bill is about addressing AIDS in Africa, but really it is about foreign aid all over the globe. The original program focused on countries that had widespread, generalized epidemics, but this bill allows the program to expand to a number of new countries that have problems only in limited areas. We can fix this problem with the bill by limiting the list of focused countries to those included in the original 2003 authorization. That is what my amendment does, amendment No. 5078, and this is what it says: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, funds authorized under this Act shall be targeted only toward those countries authorized for funding under the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003. So we keep the program focused on its original intent. Last week, the majority leader pointed out that the purpose of this bill is to specifically help people in Africa. According to the Washington Times, he told reporters: While we're fiddling around here on this in Washington, people are dying. This is big-time stuff, this is very important to one whole continent. I agree with him, but the bill he has brought up spreads money to more than three continents beyond Africa. If we are going to spend this kind of money, we need to be honest about what we are spending it on. This bill is supposed to be about the treatment of AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria in Africa. The cost of this program will only continue to increase dramatically if we continue to allow funds to go to other countries. I have also offered a second-degree amendment to prevent American taxpayers from having to support forced abortions around the world. My amendment simply says that none of the funds in this bill may be awarded to any organization or program which supports or participates in the management of a program of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization. In addition to the things I described before that fall outside the stated purpose of the bill, the provision of funds to organizations that perform and/or support coercive abortion in China is perhaps the worst. This not only kills innocent unborn children, it violates the human rights of women in China. This bill authorizes $2 billion to the United Nations Global Fund in 2009 and designates such funds in the following 4 years. This means that over the 5-year life of the bill, the United States will likely provide at least $10 billion to the United Nations Global Fund. Restrictions against funding forced abortions are in the current PEPFAR bill, but they do not apply to the Global Fund. We know that the Global Fund has provided at least two large grants in 2004 and 2006 to the various agencies within the Chinese Government, including the National Population and Family Planning Commission, which runs China's one-child-per-family program. In fact, we have here--and I wish to submit them for the record--the grants themselves which explicitly state that they were made to the various agencies within the Chinese Government, including the National Population and Family Planning Commission. I have the number, which I would like to have printed in the Record. One of these grants spent almost $59 million in 2004 and the second was over $11 million in 2006. It is quite clear that my concerns about how funds can be used in the Global Fund are real and serious. It is very obvious that unless we pass this amendment to clearly prohibit funds, they can and likely will be used by the Chinese agency that carries out coercive abortions. Instead of working to ensure that the United Nations Global Fund does not provide grants to Chinese Government agencies that force women to have abortions, the sponsors of the bill doubled the U.S. contributions to the Global Fund to $2 billion. The Bush administration has fought to prohibit funding to organizations that perform or support coercive abortions. In testimony before Congress on February 17, 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said: We have been outspoken with the Chinese about this terrible practice, and of course, as Secretary of State, I will enforce Kemp-Kasten to make certain that we are not funding anything that remotely as related to these policies. I just do not believe that either the administration or any Member of the Congress could ever argue that we should not do everything we can to ensure that American taxpayers' money does not go to the Chinese National Population and Family Planning Commission. Now, many of my colleagues may not believe this because it is so outrageous, but it is true. Many outside groups supporting this bill don't want anyone to know about it because they don't believe we should do anything that restricts abortions--even those performed against the will of the mother. Even some people who oppose spending money on coercive abortions have been convinced to look the other way because they want this bill to pass. We cannot turn a blind eye to this problem with the bill. My amendment is germane, it is allowable under the unanimous consent agreement, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support it. We need to make absolutely certain that American families are not giving their hard-earned tax dollars to organizations that force women in China and around the world to have abortions. I encourage my colleagues to support these amendments. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5078 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 5077 for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Obviously, I am disappointed that we are still unwilling to address a very basic energy bill that would open deep sea exploration in our country and would allow us to access oil shale in the middle of the United States to help create incentives for electric cars. These are simple things that Americans know we need to do. We need to proceed to it immediately, and we need to stop fiddling. We don't need to spend another week talking about foreign aid when we have yet to help Americans who have elected us to support them in our own country. I yield the floor.