Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Well, before we start fiddling, I have not made the request yet. I ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of H.R. 3221, the housing legislation, the Senate immediately proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 854, which is S. 3202, the Gas Price Reduction Act, a bill to address record-high gas prices at the pump. I further ask unanimous consent that there be 4 hours of general debate, equally divided; that upon the use or yielding back of time the Senate then proceed to consider amendments to the bill in a full and open amendment process, as is the tradition of the Senate.

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.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I appreciate the question from the leader. I think again it is inappropriate to make a decision on whether it is $6 billion or whatever the figure is. Only a couple of months ago we were all here on a technical correction bill. We had the opportunity to take a lot of money that was saved from projects that were not needed. We talked at the time on this floor about the fact that the trust fund was short. But instead of taking that savings and putting it back in the trust fund, we used it to add additional earmarks and to put more money into projects that were there. So there has been no intent by this body to try to look at the problem with the trust fund. Certainly it is something we need to deal with but not as part of the aviation bill.

Mr. DeMINT. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DeMINT. I am very supportive of the aviation bill. I do think it is inappropriate to add $8 billion of unrelated spending without debate or amendment, so I regretfully have to object.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I appreciate his willingness to offer this motion and bring some of our concerns to the attention of the Senate. I would like to make clear that it is not our intent to question the integrity of any Member of the Senate. But I believe every American has the right, given the situation surrounding this bill, to question the judgment of any Senator who votes for it at this time. I know Senator Shelby, the ranking member, has worked for years on part of this bill that is very important, and that we all support, GSE reform, getting a Federal regulator who can help keep some accountability in a system that has gotten out of control. I know if that was the only part of this bill that was being offered, he would be proud to support it. But we also know politics is the art of compromise, and we had to put a package together, I assume, that was needed in order to get the real reform through. I think the package that came together is clearly problematic. A cloud surrounds this bill. We have seen it in the media all over the country, questioning the amount of money we spend, who benefits from it, and the fact that we are potentially unloading hundreds of billions of dollars of bad loans on to the American taxpayers' shoulders. I appreciate Senator Shelby and his work, but I have to object to this bill. The purpose of referring it back to the committee is not to stop the bill indefinitely but to get a careful review of who benefits from this bill. I have received different reports since it began. First, I heard that Countrywide, one of the lenders involved that has had so many allegations against it, could potentially get $2.5 billion. Then the Wall Street Journal says it is $25 billion. As we look at this, the bill is designed to essentially encourage a lot of these mortgage companies to unload their riskiest loans on to the taxpayer. We are told, because they have to accept some reduction in the value of that loan, that they are going to be discouraged from doing it. In fact, we know if you take the riskiest loans, the Congressional Budget Office has already told us that 35 percent of these loans will default again. In other words, we basically know that 35 percent of these loans are going to fall back on the shoulders of the American taxpayer because this bill includes a guarantee. We also know some of the voluntary programs, such as the Hope Now Program facilitated by the administration, are working. They have prevented over 1.5 million foreclosures. We need to do things like that that would help avoid foreclosures, help people stay in their homes. But this bill has come together in such a way as to raise questions all over the country that we need to answer before we move ahead. Again, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his willingness to stand for this. I encourage those who even support the bill to accept that we need to say: Wait a minute; let's look at this again. Let's look at the concerns that are being expressed all over the country. Then, let's take up the bill again at the right time. I thank the Senator from Kentucky and yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I appreciate the leader's reasonableness. I would like to work with him. Again, the goal is not to pacify me but to make sure the American people can look on us and know we have had an open and transparent process. I trust the leader and respect him and how he will approach that. For that reason, I will not object to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. DeMINT. I do not feel qualified as an individual member to make the judgments that I think the committee could. Our hope was to have an up- or-down vote at one point to allow this body to at least decide if we should refer this back to the committee to look at that specific area, to make sure there is complete transparency, and to address what benefits some of these companies have. All we want is an up-or-down vote, not necessarily a determination of how the bill should be changed. I certainly cannot determine. We have had one media source say it is $25 billion to Countrywide. We thought the committee had indicated $2.5 billion. Certainly, because of the media promotion of this, this has become a national issue. So our hope is that, again, before the bill is over--not today; it is certainly a reasonable request to deal with housing amendments today--but that the leader would assure us that before this bill is finished, we would have an up-or-down vote on referring it back to committee.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I appreciate the leader's sensitivity to some concerns we expressed yesterday on the length of this bill and the fact that probably very few, if any, of us have had a chance to read it, as well as his sensitivities to a slew of credible media reports that question some of the intents in the bill. We all know the housing crisis is an issue in this country, and we do need to look at what we can do as a Senate to relieve the foreclosures and to help Americans stay in their homes. But we need to do it in a way the American people trust. We are trying to get through this bill. We know it has been changed since the committee has considered it. I ask the leader if he would consider a modification of his agreement that we be assured that before this bill is finished, we will have an opportunity in the minority to offer an amendment that would refer the bill to the committee with instructions to report what direct benefits Countrywide or other financial institutions would receive from this legislation. Would the leader be willing to modify his agreement to include that?

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, the Constitution requires Congress to observe certain processes to make statutory law. Contrary to the apparent assumption of some in this body, Congress does not possess the power to intentionally ignore requirements provided in the Constitution's text. Article I, Section 7, prescribes a bicameral requirement to present a bill to the President. H.R. 2419, as enrolled, did not pass both chambers of Congress. The House and Senate passed Farm Bill included Title III. A clerical error omitted the entirety of Title III in the enrolled bill presented to the President. The bill sent to the President, no matter the significance of the error, did not receive the consent of both chambers of Congress, and therefore fails to fulfill the necessary predicate to presentment contained in the Presentment Clauses of Article I. In fact, the measure sent to the President does not qualify as a ``bill'' at all under Article I, Section 7. I implore the President to disregard H.R. 2419 as an unconstitutional measure, without the status of law. Despite the dubious status of the Farm Bill, the Majority Leader assured the Senate that: We have a good legal precedent going back to a case . . . in 1892, when something like this happened before. It is totally constitutional to do what we are planning to do. So no one should be concerned about that. The Majority Leader alluded to Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, in which the Supreme Court announced the ``enrolled bill rule,'' to assuage any constitutional consternation held by Senators. However the Senator from Nevada mischaracterizes the Supreme Court's ruling in Marshall Field, as the decision relates only to the: . . . nature of evidence upon which a court may act when the issue is made as to whether a bill, originating in the house of representatives or the senate, and asserted to have become a law, was or was not passed by congress. The Marshall Field Court did not adjudicate the constitutionality of an improperly enrolled bill, but rather only reached the question of justiciability. The Court did not find the issue of constitutionality justiciable. Marshall Field merely expressed the Supreme Court's deference to a ``coequal and independent'' department's internal authentication processes. A bill signed by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, ``in open session . . . is an official attestation by the two houses'' that a bill received the consent of both chambers for the purpose of justiciability. Marshall Field received renewed attention in recent years as courts grappled with circumstances similar to those presented by the Farm Bill. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 generated litigation that challenged the Act's constitutionality because ``it did not pass the House in the form in which it was passed by the Senate, signed by the President, and enrolled as a Public Law.'' The litigation did not provide any ruling on the merits; the ``enrolled bill rule'' promulgated in Marshall Field precluded the district courts from any examination of ``congressional documents . . . to ascertain whether the language in the enrolled bill comport[ed] with versions that appear in legislative sources which precede[d] enrollment.'' The ``claim of unconstitutionality for a violation of Article I, Section 7, `is not legally cognizable where an enrolled bill has been signed by the presiding officers of the House and Senate as well as the President.' '' The judiciary's reluctance to entertain the merits of claims under Article I, Section 7 does not bar members of the House and Senate from consideration thereof. President Jackson explicated the authority of each branch to interpret the Constitution independently: The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution . . . It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. Upon election and in cases of subsequent reelection, every Member of Congress swears allegiance to the Constitution of the United States in an Oath. Members ``solemnly swear . . . [to] support and defend the Constitution . . . [to] bear true faith and allegiance to the same . . . and . . . [to] well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office'' to which elected. The Oath of Office imposes an obligation on Members of Congress to interpret the Constitution and act within its framework. The Presentment Clauses of the Constitution require the assent of both chambers for each bill presented to the President. Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 provides: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated . . . Article I, Section 7, Clause 3 elaborates: Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States . . . The two clauses stipulate ``the exclusive method for passing federal statutes.'' Bills enrolled and presented to the President must have received the assent of both the House and Senate, irrespective of authentication by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate. So we've had bicameralism without presentment for the engrossed bill. And we've had presentment without bicameralism for the enrolled bill. Neither is sufficient. Contrary to the position of the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, authentication of an invalid bill does not displace the bill's nugatory status; the signatures of the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate do not represent the will of the House and Senate and fall short of the bicameral requirement in the Presentment Clause. Congress may not jettison or suspend disagreeable parts of the Constitution. The Bill, as presented to the President, did not receive the consent of both chambers. As such, the bill is null and void, for it does not meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution. Shall this Congress crucify the Constitution on the cross of agribusiness?

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, in a few minutes the Senate will once again vote on a farm bill that expands the Federal Government's management of farm and food programs while spending over $600 billion during the next 10 years. I do not want to diminish in any way all the hard work of my Republican and Democratic colleagues and their very capable staff, but I rise today to ask my fellow Senators to stop and think about what we are doing to our country--not go just with this bill but what we have done as a Congress and as a Federal Government over the last few decades. The farm bill is a symptom of a bigger problem. We are often so focused on specific problems and issues and legislation that we fail to see the cumulative effect of our work over many years. We can start with what we have done to our culture and the character of our people. For several decades, this Congress and our courts have turned right and wrong upside down and encouraged all kinds of costly and destructive behavior. Our welfare programs have encouraged an epidemic of unwed births that cost our country over $150 billion a year and is the major contributor to child abuse, crime, poverty, and school dropouts. Our courts have ruled that pornography, abortion, and gay marriage are constitutional rights. The Federal Government has expanded casino gambling by legalizing it on Indian reservations, even in States where gambling is illegal. All these decisions and policies have proved destructive and costly to our country. The Federal Government's attempts to manage America's institutional services and economy have been equally devastating. Over the past 10 years, while I have been in the House and the Senate, I have seen this Congress attempt to manage many aspects of our lives and our economy. I will start with education. The quality of American education has declined since the 1970s, when the Federal Department of Education was established. By the year 2000, when President Bush took office, our Government-run education system was clearly not preparing our children to compete in the global economy. No Child Left Behind expanded the Federal role and Federal spending even more. But there has been little discernible progress. We see some progress in charter schools and specialty schools and other types of schools that break away from the Federal mold. But this Congress continues to restrict the flexibility of States and the freedom of parents to choose a school that works for their children. We should also talk about what this Congress and the Federal Government has done to our health care system. Medicare and the Government fixed-rate system control virtually all the health care in America today. A few years ago, this Congress decided to add prescription drug coverage to Medicare, even though the program was already going broke. Now, the program is hopelessly underfunded, and we continue to cut what Medicare pays doctors and hospitals to see our senior citizens. The problem is fewer and fewer doctors want to see Medicare patients because they lose money when they treat them. So they charge their patients with private insurance more so fewer Americans can afford private insurance. And fewer and fewer students are going into medicine because it is clear they are not going to be paid enough to make a decent living. So we now expect and predict a physician shortage crisis as millions of baby boomers are retiring. The solution for us is to make sure every American has an insurance plan they can afford and keep, not to try to manage health care from Washington. Social Security is another example of Government mismanagement. Instead of saving the taxes we take from workers for Social Security, Congress has spent every dime, trillions of dollars. Now, in less than 10 years, Social Security taxes will not be enough to pay benefits to seniors. Congress refuses to even talk about it. Let's not forget what the Federal Government has done to our energy situation in this country. Congressional attempts to manage America's energy industry have been disastrous. To supposedly protect the environment, the Democrats shut down the development of new nuclear powerplants back in the 1970s. So America burns a lot more coal, while other countries expanded nuclear and reduced their coal consumption. Now, the Democrats want to add huge taxes on coal to protect the environment, while still stalling development of nuclear generation. Go figure. Two years ago, in the name of the environment, this Congress mandated a massive increase in the use of ethanol and gasoline. Since then, the price of gasoline has nearly doubled and food prices have increased dramatically around the world. Why do I mention all these things that do not appear to relate to the farm bill? I do it to remind my colleagues and all Americans that this Congress cannot manage any aspect of our country, and it is not intended to. Our job is to create a framework of law where freedom can prevail. Instead, we attempt to manage where we cannot, and there is no evidence we have ever created any program that effectively or efficiently managed any aspect of the American economy or any aspect of our lives. Why do we continue to produce these massive Government programs and spend trillions of dollars with the pretense that they will actually work and make America better? This Congress reminds me of Steve Urkel from the 1990 sitcom series ``Family Matters.'' Steve and his clumsiness regularly created a disaster wherever he went. He would always turn around and look at the destruction he caused and ask innocently: Did I do that? Well, colleagues, when you look at the price of gasoline, the condition of our economy and our culture, the answer is: Yes, you did do that. America is the greatest Nation in the world. We have been blessed in ways other nations can only dream of. Yet our future is uncertain. We face deficits as far as the eye can see. We are staring down the barrel of a looming financial crisis that threatens to bankrupt our country. Yet we continue to spend money like there is no tomorrow. If action is not taken soon, we will reach a tipping point in our two major entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare, in which the programs will pay out more money than they take in. Our national debt is over $9 trillion today. And still, Washington will spend over $25,000 per household this year. We are hopelessly addicted to spending. It is no wonder Congressional approval numbers continue on a downward spiral. Nobody trusts us anymore, and, frankly, we do not deserve the trust of the American people because we continue to blindly spend their hard-earned tax dollars while racking up hedge debts for our children and grandchildren that they will be forced to repay. Now, here we are again, taking a brief break from the climate tax bill that would cost the American people trillions of dollars to reconsider another big-spending boondoggle. The farm bill which weighs in at over $600 billion over the next 10 years, is chock-full of pork and excessive subsidies for favored and special interests groups. The bill has numerous wasteful spending provisions. I will name a few: New programs for Kentucky horse breeders, Pacific Coast salmon fishermen, and spending to help finance the dairy industry's ``Got Milk?'' campaign, so we should see more commercials soon. It increases the price supports for the sugar industry and guarantees 85 percent of the domestic sugar market at these guaranteed prices. There is a $257 million tax earmark for the Plum Creek Timber Company, which is the Nation's largest private landowner, and a multibillion dollar company with a market capitalization in excess of $7 billion. They are better off than we are as a government. The language requires the U.S. Forest Service to sell portions of the Green Mountain National Forest exclusively to the Bromley Ski Resort. There is $1 million for the National Sheep and Goat Industry Improvement Center; politically targeted research earmarks for agricultural policy research centers at specific universities instead of allowing all universities and colleges to fairly compete for funding based on merit. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, this farm bill includes $5.2 billion annually in direct payments to individuals, many of whom are no longer farming, without any regard to prices or income, 60 percent of which go to the wealthiest 10 percent of recipients. From where I stand, this bill looks like another big-spending Washington, DC, giveaway to special interests. Do we not understand the mess we are in? Total Government spending has now reached more than one- third of America's economy. U.S. tax rates keep getting more burdensome. Our top corporate tax rate and income tax rate is 35 percent, while Europeans are undercutting American companies by lowering their rates significantly. Recently, a front-page article in USA Today found that American taxpayers are on the hook for a record $57.3 trillion in Federal liabilities to cover the lifetime benefits of everyone eligible for Medicare, Social Security, and other Government programs. USA Today's analysis went on to point out that this is nearly $500,000, $\1/2\ million, for every American household. When obligations of State and local governments are added, the total rises to $61.7 trillion, or $531,000 per household. That is more than four times what Americans owe in personal debt such as mortgages. While we are spending and taxing our way to reelection, many of our global competitors are lowering their tax rates and streamlining their economies. Countries such as Ireland are lowering their tax rates and encouraging economic growth within their borders. As a result, they are growing their economies and creating jobs. And we wonder why we are falling behind? We are falling behind because of political mismanagement. This is what happens when politicians think more about their next election than they do about the next generation. When this happens, it becomes all about us and not about the American people. This big-spending farm bill is a perfect example of this kind of political mismanagement. The leadership of this Congress was in such a hurry to pass a big-spending giveaway to special interests that they actually violated the Constitution to do it. Even a schoolchild knows the Constitution requires the House and the Senate to pass the same bill and then present it to the President for his signature. But, apparently, the Constitution is not as important to some as passing a $600 billion spending bill. The farm bill that was presented to the President for his signature or veto was not the bill passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate. The bill Congress voted on differed materially from the version that was presented to the President. It contained a whole additional title, spanning 35 pages, dealing with international aid shipments and foreign trade. Quite simply, what the President vetoed and what the House and the Senate held a veto override vote on was not the bill Congress passed. It, therefore, failed the requirements of the Constitution and could not be treated as law. That is why we have this new bill on the floor today. Regardless of the reasons for this constitutional, I will not say crisis, but mess, the fact is an officer of the House and an officer of the Senate usurped the will of the two bodies and materially changed the content of legislation. Even worse, by holding a veto override, Congress attempted to make a bill it never passed the law of the land. This is why I voted ``present'' on the farm bill. Once we were aware of the mistake, we should have stopped and passed a temporary extension. This abuse of power or sloppiness may only be the consequence of incompetence, but if we do not draw the line in the sand and demand that our bills meet constitutional requirements, what will stop even greater, and possibly even more malicious, abuses of power? The Senate needs to reject this bill, pass a year-long extension of the farm bill, and go back to the drawing board so the policy and the process are something we can be proud of and that will truly strengthen our Nation. We must come to grips with the fact that our actions are hurting the American people. We cannot continue to spend and spend and expect our economy to remain strong and free. Already our spending is catching up to us. I hope we will think long and hard about our actions. What we are doing will hurt future generations. I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some information regarding enrollment and the problems we have been having with getting our bills sent to the President in the correct order.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a resolution I have submitted today that declares June 6 a national day of prayer and rededication for the men and women of the U. S. Armed Forces and their mission. As my colleagues know, when 73,000 Americans stormed the beaches at Normandy, France, on June 6, 1944, President Franklin Roosevelt went on national radio to lead the Nation in prayer for their success. With over 300,000 men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces deployed worldwide today, and many of these troops directly engaged in armed combat in Iraq and Afghanistan against determined and ruthless enemies, President Roosevelt's words calling on all Americans to ``devote themselves to a continuance of prayer'' for American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in harm's way are as appropriate today as they were in June of 1944. It is appropriate to make every anniversary of D-day, June 6, a national day of prayer for the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces. Now I will read President Roosevelt's D-day radio prayer: My Fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far. And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer: Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity. Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith. They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph. They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest--until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war. For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home. Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom. And for us at home-- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice. Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts. Give us strength, too--strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces. And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be. And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment--let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose. With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace--a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil. Thy will be done, Almighty God. Amen. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will take up this resolution and make June 6 a national day of prayer for our Nation.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Yes.

Mr. DeMINT. I just have one. Thirty minutes equally divided?

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, my motion has been mischaracterized, I am afraid. I am opposed to the Boxer motion because it would clearly, from the language, add tariffs or some kind of penalties to imports from around the world, unless emissions standards in other countries match ours, I guess, exactly. This would add to the cost of products that are purchased by Americans. My motion is one that tries to keep jobs in this country. Unfortunately, my colleague is suggesting, I am afraid, as many have over the years, that we have two false choices. We either have a good economy or we have a good environment. Those are not the choices. In fact, my motion would allow us to continue to develop nuclear generation, which is good for the environment and the economy, or hydrogen cars or electric cars or hybrid cars. Most of what we can do is good for the environment and improves the economy. My motion simply says: We cannot pass legislation unless other countries go along, otherwise we are exporting jobs and pollution.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, during the last vote, some of my Republican and Democratic colleagues asked me if it didn't make sense to vote for both these motions. Both understand we need to be careful in mandates that hurt our economy and jobs, unless we recognize what other countries are doing when they are polluting. My motion focuses on here at home. I want to make sure folks understand what it is about. Most of the things we can do to improve our environment and to stop CO2 emissions can actually improve our economy. We know, as we try to build dozens, if not hundreds, of nuclear plants, it will create new jobs all over the country and improve our economy, just as Europe has done. Solar panels and wind, as well as hybrid cars and hydrogen fuel--all of these things are good for the economy and energy. My motion--

Mr. DeMINT. Yes.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I appreciate the comments by my colleague from California. Certainly, it should be our highest priority as a nation to continue to remove CO2 emissions throughout our country. We don't need to wait for any other country to act, only our own. We do need to recognize that if we put such a burden on our industries in America, they will move production to China, and they will do their polluting somewhere else rather than here. If that is what our legislation does, then we do nothing for the environment, and the only thing we do for our country is send jobs overseas. We need to be smarter in how we deal with this matter. The side-by-side motion by my colleague from California would add insult to injury. She wants to leave us open to lose jobs in America by putting mandates on our companies that hurt our economy and cost us jobs. Then she wants to add taxes on products that are coming from other countries that don't abide by our mandates so that products cost more for the people who live here, many of whom would not have jobs. We cannot solve our environmental problems with this kind of convoluted logic. The motion I have put forward simply says if--and only if--a mandate is known to hurt our economy and costs our jobs, then we need to figure out a different way to deal with it than to put a mandate on a U.S. company in competition with businesses that don't have the same mandate in other countries we trade with. It is only common sense, and it doesn't make sense, again, to send jobs overseas and then try to add taxes to products that we buy from around the world. I encourage my colleagues to think this through. Let me provide a few more facts about what we are trying to do. We need to work to reduce greenhouse gases, and there are many things we can do that do not hurt our economy and don't drive jobs out of our country. In fact, if we look at it closely, good economics is usually good for the environment. We see that if we move with all compassion but just knee-jerk reactions, we end up with programs, such as an ethanol mandate, that do not help the environment, raise the price of food, and hurt people all over the world. I am afraid that same type of thinking is going on right now. It is a laudable goal, one with which I agree, that we should continue to work in all reasonable ways to reduce CO2 emissions in our country. One recent study from the University of California found that China passed the United States in carbon emissions in 2006 and is now the largest pollution-producing country in the world. This has just been in a few short years, and they are growing much faster than we are. We do need to keep in mind that carbon in the air that comes from China does as much to hurt the worldwide environment, if, in fact, it does affect global warming--it doesn't matter if it is coming from the United States or China. If we ignore what other countries are doing, we do it at our own peril. My motion is very similar to bipartisan agreements that we had in the Congress when discussing the Kyoto agreement. It makes no sense to bind our own companies with expensive mandates if we do not have cooperation from countries in other parts of the world. We simply move our production and our jobs somewhere else. So we need to be logical about it. I mentioned before, according to a World Bank study, both China and India have increased CO2 emissions by nearly 100 percent from 1990 to 2004, while the United States emissions in that same period only increased by 25 percent, which is less than the growth of our economy during that period. This emissions scheme we have talked about would export American manufacturing jobs to China and India. With the solution that is being presented by my colleague from California, she is basically saying: OK, let's hurt the economy and lose jobs in this country, but we can make up for it by raising prices of goods that come to us from China and India. That is not going to help anyone in this country, and it is not going to do anything to reduce emissions in the world. It is playing musical chairs with American jobs and basically encouraging the environment to be spoiled in other parts of the world. In order to truly address greenhouse gas emissions, it is imperative that China, India, and other countries that are emitting need to work together. So if we take this on simply as one country, we will hurt ourselves, we would not help the environment and we will send jobs overseas and actually encourage pollution, magnified, in effect, by not acting in a way that tries to seek cooperation around the world. I certainly encourage my colleagues to respond to the need to reduce CO2 emissions and to look at ways we are doing it already that actually create jobs and don't take them from our country. But let's not solve the problem by making it worse and shipping our jobs and pollution overseas and expect to do any good with our legislation. Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. Could I get another minute?

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I send a motion to the desk.

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Chair. My motion does not affect any of the attempts to reduce CO2 emissions except when we know it is hurting the economy and hurting jobs. In that case, we cannot move ahead with penalties and mandates unless China and India--the two largest polluting countries-- have similar emissions standards. So it is just a ``hold on,'' let's not hurt our economy and ourselves. There are many ways we can reduce CO2 emissions without hurting jobs in this country. I encourage my colleagues to support this motion. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I want to take a few moments to explain this motion. I hope we can all agree on it. If there is one thing that we hear from both sides when we are talking about trade around the world, and trade agreements, it is there needs to be a level playing field; that trade needs to be fair; that the terms should be the same on both sides. This motion to instruct the conferees addresses that one issue. It would prevent Congress from passing any law with new mandates on greenhouse gas emissions that would harm the U.S. economy or result in job loss unless both China and India had the same mandates--in other words, if we had a level playing field. It is not going to help the environment in the United States or the world if we pass mandates that raise the cost of doing business in our country, particularly those companies that are energy intensive, especially manufacturing, if we create mandates that do not exist in India or China. Our companies will simply relocate to other countries, taking American jobs with them. The point of this motion is to put in front of all of the conferees the idea that it is important for us to reduce greenhouse emissions, to reduce CO2 emissions all over the world. But it is also important for us to keep in mind that if we do something that is isolated to the United States, that hurts our economy and costs us jobs. It makes no sense if we don't require the major industrial countries, such as China and India, to do the same. So we have seen over the last 15 years that CO2 emissions in the United States have actually grown less than the economy has grown. So our productivity is increasing, and our use per capita, as far as CO2, is actually declining. We see at the same time a 100-percent increase in emissions from China and India. Anybody who watched the prelude to the Olympics in China can see the results of that in the air. So I ask my colleagues--particularly the conferees--to support the idea that we will not do anything that puts new emissions standards on our companies in this country, if we know it is going to hurt the economy or jobs, and that we need to insist the same standards apply in China and India. With that, I will yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I do not like to be the one to rain on a parade, but I am rising today to speak against the farm bill. I wish to do it in the context of thanking the chairman and the ranking member for their work. I think if we assume it is our job to manage the farming industry in this country, they had very little choice but to do what they have done and try to go through all aspects of farming and include it in this bill. That took over 2 hours to print out. It came out less than 2 days ago. We are getting ready to vote on it. Not one Member of the Senate has read probably even part of it--certainly not the whole bill. Yet I think everyone, or at least a large number of Senators, want to leave here today saying they voted for the farm bill. I realize nothing I can say that is wrong with the bill--whether it violates budgets or even our own Senate rules, as far as what we are supposed to do in conference--is going to make that much difference. I wish to express some concerns--maybe, before I talk specifically about the farm bill, some broader concerns. I heard one of my colleagues yesterday say it in a pretty good way: The Congress is comfortably sitting on a raft floating down a slow, deep river. But some of us hear the waterfall around the corner, and it is the waterfall I wish to talk a little bit about today. We all need to remember our oath of office. I don't want to be preaching to my more veteran colleagues, but our oath of office is simply to protect and defend the Constitution. The whole point of that is the Constitution limits the scope of what we are supposed to do at the Federal level. It keeps us from getting involved in all aspects of American business and social life. It limits us so that we can, in effect, keep America free. But as we all know, we have continued to expand the scope of the Federal Government, essentially making a mockery of our oath of office now to the point where we are trying to manage the education system in America and we are trying to manage the health care system in America. This week, we are trying to tell local and State governments how they are to deal with their public safety officers. We are trying to manage the farming industry in this country, which is very complex. I cannot pretend to understand it or to tell any other Member of the Senate how we are to manage it. But the fact is, we no longer limit the scope of what we do at the Federal level. There is no concern in this country or around the world that this body would not take up, and we seldom even talk about any restrictions the Constitution might have on what we do. We also do not limit how much we can spend. We have no requirement that we balance our budget year to year. So we don't have to select priorities and cut programs when we add programs. So we continue to grow our budget, approaching now $10 trillion in debt as a Nation and adding to that every year. Here we are at a time of war and economic downturn, and there is nothing that is too much for us to spend. The President has proposed $50 billion of AIDS support to Africa. That is wonderful, but there is enough human need around the world to bankrupt this country 100 times. This farm bill expands spending. It does not modernize the program in any way that does more to make the free and private market work. It takes us deeper and deeper into managing an aspect of the private economy, as we have done with health care and education, and every year we get deeper into trying to manage the private sector. Our role as a government should be to make the private sector work better, to make freedom work for everyone and not to use problems as an excuse to replace freedom and the private market with more Government. That is essentially what we are doing. I am not just jumping on the farm bill and those who have worked on it. We know we continue to subsidize some millionaires, and we eliminate some key payment limits. I can go through the list my staff has given me of what is wrong with the bill. As I said before, I realize there are provisions that solve problems throughout, that there are constituencies for little aspects of this bill throughout. We pulled it together, and we are going to present it now to our country. What is wrong with the bill, frankly, has very little relevance today. I appeal to my colleagues, I know we are not going to stop this bill, but we do need to hear the waterfall around the corner. We do need to accept there are some restrictions, some limits on what we are supposed to do as a Federal Government, some need to balance our budget or to begin to cut our debt and look at, if we are going to expand spending in one area, where can we cut it and pay for it in another area. We are stretched out as a country. We are on an unsustainable fiscal course. We at least need to bring that into our debate. That is what I would like to bring to everyone's attention today. Again, I appreciate the chairman, the ranking member, and all those staff members who worked so hard on this bill. But, frankly, as a group, as a Senate, our direction to the committee and those working on it should be to reform a system and try to figure out how we can pull the Federal Government out of some aspects of American business. We did not do it with this bill. We have not read it. It is crazy for us as a Senate to pass a bill that we have not had for 2 days and have not read that spends the hundreds of billions of dollars that this bill does. But I do want to say I appreciate the work, but I recommend to any of my colleagues who are thinking about the future of America to please vote against this bill. I yield back the remainder of my time to the ranking member from Georgia.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to talk about my amendment that will be voted on in about 15 or 20 minutes. It is amendment No. 4710. It is an amendment to the National Flood Insurance Program bill we are considering today. The whole purpose of the flood insurance bill is to improve the program, make it more actuarially sound, make it more financially sustainable over many years. Obviously, we have had huge problems with the program. Yet it is very important to people all around the country, particularly those in coastal areas. One of the goals of this reform bill is to make the rates fairer and to phase out a number of the subsidies that we have allowed under the current program. The current program allows up to a 65-percent subsidy on properties that were purchased before we developed these flood maps. In other words, there were many properties purchased years ago when people did not know they were purchasing a home in a flood area. For that reason, we basically grandfathered these homes in and allowed them lower rates in the flood insurance program than those who bought homes after we had designated those flood areas. The bill addresses some of those properties by phasing out the subsidies of nonprimary residences--those that are rental properties, second homes, and even those with severe repetitive losses. We take about 475,000 properties that were pre-FIRM, as we call it, or preflood map, and phase those out. There are 700,000 permanent residences we do not address in the bill. The purpose of my amendment is to bring all the properties, basically, into the same plan, and not to force some to pay higher premiums so we can give subsidies to these 700,000 homes. My bill doesn't affect the rates or the subsidies of any current property owner. My amendment does address new owners, if those properties are sold after this bill passes. In other words, we continue the subsidies of current property owners, except for those already addressed in the bill. But if those properties are sold, clearly, the new owner would know they are buying in a flood zone, so the rationale to continue subsidies up to 65 percent does not exist. I remind my colleagues that if we allow inequities to continue, where some are getting subsidies and some are not, then some residents--and one might be sitting next to another--are going to have a higher property value because it will get lower flood insurance rates indefinitely, no matter how many times it is sold. My amendment, again, I think would improve the sustainability of the program. I encourage the ranking member to consider this. I know there have been agreements not to add or support any amendments. But I think this captures a lot of the intent of the whole bill to make the program sustainable and fairer, and actually my amendment would return about $550 million in additional premium revenues to the plan over the next 10 years. So this is, again, designed to make the program fairer. I encourage my colleagues to look at this amendment. It is not a partisan amendment in any way. It will make the program better and fairer and it will bring everybody into the same status once properties are sold. With that, I will reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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