Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, we have many important issues in front of us. We have been talking a lot about energy this week, including the high cost of gasoline and problems with ethanol mandates and potential problems with the cost of electricity. As we look at ways to reduce pollution, certainly energy is important. We have also been dealing with flood insurance. There is no shortage of issues. But we know as we talk to our constituents around the country that at the top of their list of priorities is health insurance and health care and the ability to afford the policies that are out there. We have differences of opinion in the Senate as to how to deal with the uninsured in our country today. There is one philosophy that believes the government needs to be more involved; we need to expand government control of health care. There is another philosophy of which I am a part which believes that our job in the Senate and in the Congress and in the Federal Government is to make freedom work for everyone, and that includes people having the freedom to own their own health insurance. We believe when people do not work for a company that offers health insurance, they should have guaranteed access to affordable health insurance policies that they can take from job to job. I am encouraged that Senator McCain is on the side of freedom of choice and individual ownership of plans. We know if we are going to make individual plans work, we need to address the high cost of insurance. We know that is the biggest impediment to getting coverage when that coverage is not offered through an employer. In fact, nearly two-thirds of the uninsured are the working poor, and they cite the high cost of insurance as the primary barrier to accessing health coverage. We can talk about the uninsured, and we can talk about the high cost of insurance, but we need to address the real causes of the high cost of insurance. We know if we look at the policies, if we talk to those who offer the policies--the insurance companies--we know that mandates, government mandates on those policies have a lot to do with the high cost of insurance. States have passed more than 1,900 benefit mandates requiring insurance companies to cover everything from wigs to infertility treatments to acupuncturists to massage therapists. These may all be legitimate needs, but they are not legitimate mandates on insurance policies. When people are looking for a policy that meets their needs that they can afford, we cannot continue as governments--both State and Federal--to mandate that every policy cover every possible problem when individuals do not need those mandates to buy the policies they want. These mandates increase the cost of health insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, for every 1 percent increase in the cost of health insurance, 300,000 people lose their coverage. A few States are getting the message that mandates make health insurance more expensive. There are at least 10 States that provide for mandate-lite policies which allow individuals to purchase a policy with fewer mandates and so are more tailored to their individual needs and financial situation. There are now at least 30 States that require a mandate's cost to be assessed before it is implemented. These States are getting the message. Mandates are pricing individuals out of the insurance market. I have introduced legislation that addresses these growing problems. In December, Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona joined me in introducing the Health Care Choice Act. This legislation is important because it will allow consumers to shop for health insurance the same way they do for other insurance products. They can shop on line, by mail, over the phone, or in consultation with an insurance agent in their hometown. Specifically, the bill would let insurers licensed in one State sell to individuals in the other 49 States. Most people are surprised that you can't do that now because in every other product category we can buy products not only in every State but all over the world. But with health insurance, we have taken a different tact, a tact that has made health insurance much more expensive because we allow a few insurance companies to monopolize the market in 50 individual States. What we need is a national market for health insurance. Consumers will no longer be limited to picking only those policies that meet their State regulations and mandated benefits. Instead, they can examine the wide array of insurance policies qualified in one State and offered for sale in multiple States. This way, consumers can choose a policy that best suits their needs and their budget without regard to State boundaries. It makes a lot of common sense. Individuals looking for basic health insurance coverage can opt for a policy with a few benefits they need, and such a policy will be more affordable. On the other hand, consumers who have an interest in a particular benefit such as infertility treatments will be able to purchase a policy that includes that benefit. Equally important, it creates incentives for insurance companies to offer innovative and customized insurance products, and it will reduce the number of Americans who have sought but have been unable to afford insurance coverage. I am thrilled that Senator John McCain has made this legislation one of the cornerstones of his health insurance platform because health insurance coverage should not be dictated by State or Federal legislators. Families sitting around their kitchen tables should decide what their health insurance plan should cover. I believe Senator McCain's plan to address the gross health care inequity in the Tax Code and to harness the power of the marketplace through the interstate competition of insurance products, through that, Americans will be able to find affordable health insurance that offers more choice and better coverage. We know this is true. As we talk to insurance companies, if they were allowed to offer products for all 50 States under one set of regulations, or under 50 if they choose, if they are able to have a larger pool of members, they can spread the risk and lower the rates. The Health Care Choice Act is a commonsense way to let freedom work for every American, to let the free enterprise system work in health insurance as it does in almost every other area of our lives. I encourage my colleagues to consider the Health Care Choice Act and to move away from this idea that more government control, more government mandates is actually going to help us get more Americans insured. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, in a moment I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment, but I wish to have a little discussion on the floor with the chairman and ranking member because for the most part, we agree on a lot of the principles in the bill, and they would like the latitude to work some of this out in conference. My goal is to have a more sustainable, fairer program. The idea is not to raise the price of current premium payers or to raise the price of real estate. I want to ask my colleagues if they would consider some of the principles of bringing all policies eventually into some actuarial equity.

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. DeMINT. Mr. President, if I could take a couple of minutes to explain these, my hope is that I can even get the chairman's support of this. Amendment No. 4711 is actually a study that I hope we can all agree on. It is a study that would try to determine the feasibility of using incentives of lower flood insurance rates when consumers or businesses have their homes or business locations comply with nationally recognized building codes. A number of codes are out there. If we could encourage better construction of buildings, to make them more resistant to storms, it is likely we could save the flood insurance program a lot of money. So this amendment would simply study the feasibility of those incentives and what it might do to insurance rates, as well as to saving Government money. My second amendment, No. 4710, ends the practice of permanently subsidizing premiums for older homes in flood zones, which can be as large as 65-percent. The bill does a good job phasing out these subsidies for just about every other property: businesses, vacation rentals, and primary residences that have been renovated since the flood zone mapping was determined. But there are a number of homes that are grandfathered into subsidies up to 65 percent. These are homes that were built before 1975 or when their area's flood mapping was actually done. These primary residences enjoy this subsidy, and will continue to under the current bill. What my amendment does not do is change the insurance rates or the subsidy for those who are grandfathered into the current rate that we call pre-firm, or before flood insurance rate maps were completed; in other words, these are folks who could legitimately have said they did not know they were in a flood plain when they bought their home. I think their rates and subsidies should stay the same. What my amendment does is make the premiums for pre-firm properties sold after this bill's enactment the same actuarial rates of homes that were built after the new mapping was complete, or post-firm. So it is a relatively simple amendment, and I think it gives more equity to the total bill by making sure all properties are eventually treated equally. So I will provide more detail tomorrow, but I hope the chairman will consider both of those amendments because I would love to have his support. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, my next amendment is actually a modification which I need to send to the desk. It is amendment No. 4710.

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to call up two amendments and then make some brief comments about them. The first amendment is amendment No. 4711, which I believe is at the desk.

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

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, on behalf of several of my colleagues, I object.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, on behalf of several of my colleagues, I object.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, no, I will not. I have been down here several times today, and I will continue my remarks. But I will be glad to have the Senator say anything after I complete my remarks. The Senator mentioned the technical corrections bill for transportation. He said this was just typos. This bill added hundreds of millions of dollars of new earmarks to our transportation budget. It was not a technical correction bill. It was an opportunity for the majority and some others to add things that did not need to be a part of this bill. The Senator even knows, on bills such as consumer product safety where special provisions were added for manufacturers in that bill, we had to slow the bill down in order to get those things taken out. So there is a reason the majority has not been able to move any significant legislation. It is because they tend to clutter it up with wasteful special interest earmarks that need to be taken out. Hopefully, we can come to an agreement to take out these unnecessary and unprecedented tax provisions in our aviation modernization bill so we can get this thing done. Health Care Mr. President, I did not come down to talk about aviation modernization, as I hope the majority will clean this bill up so we can get it through. But I want to talk a little bit about health care. Health care is a priority for the Nation. Americans deserve access to affordable health insurance. Yet we are wasting time here and not doing anything to help with the health care crisis in this country today. Fortunately, one of our colleagues, John McCain, has come out this week strongly for a health care plan that would help every American to be insured. He talks about guaranteed access to health insurance--plans people can own and can afford and keep, plans they choose for themselves and that are not chosen by the Government. This is the direction we need to move. Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues--at least many of them--do not want everyone to be insured with personal health insurance policies. They would much rather the Government take over the whole health insurance industry and decide for us what type of health plans we are going to have. The evidence of this is abundant. There are a number of efforts Republicans have made to try to improve access to private health insurance. One is to allow people in this country to buy health insurance from anywhere in the country. Right now, they are restricted to buying it in the State where they live. So a few insurance companies have a monopoly on the business. We have had a Health Care Choice Act that would give Americans a chance to shop anywhere in the country. Yet the Democrats have blocked this bill. Only a couple weeks ago, we had an amendment to the budget bill that would allow individuals to deduct the cost of health insurance, just as businesses do. But I believe every Democrat in the Senate voted against that, to give some kind of fair tax treatment to individuals who are buying health care. They blocked it. Yet they complain about individuals being uninsured. They do everything they can to keep individuals from owning health insurance. Now the Democrats are trying to destroy health savings accounts. It started in the House with a bill that will change the way health savings accounts are set up. The fastest growing way for the uninsured to get insurance is new types of health plans that have health savings accounts and insurance, where people can buy most of their health care with their own dollars or in dollars their employers put in this health savings account that is tax free. It gives them a lot more choices and flexibility, and it takes out, importantly, the cost of third-party administration. Health savings accounts are a way to restructure health insurance plans so that every time you go to the doctor or the hospital, there is not a third-party insurance company filing claims or dealing with billing and running up the cost of administration. We know today there are more administrative people in a doctor's office or a hospital than there are health care providers. The reason for that is, every time we use the health care system, there is a third party involved, whether it is private health insurance or Medicaid or Medicare, and there are a lot of administrative costs. Health savings accounts not only give people more flexibility, but they begin to take the cost of administration out of health care. It allows an individual to make their own decisions with their doctors or with their pharmacists as to their health care, and they do not need approval from some health insurance company or from some Government bureaucrat whether they are going to spend this money. Certainly, the way health savings account dollars are spent is restricted to real health care, and that is the way it is working. But, unfortunately, a company that provides this service of substantiating the way health care dollars are spent has come to Washington and convinced Democrats that we need a third party to determine whether a health savings account spending event can be substantiated. This is definitely a special interest provision that the Democrats have bought into. But what it does is it adds the administrative costs back to health savings accounts and takes away the flexibility we are giving to individuals. Keep in mind, people who are uninsured and people who did not have insurance before and a number of people who are switching from traditional plans--and we have gone from 1 million people covered by health savings account-type plans to over 6 million in the last few years. It is the fastest growing type of health care plan because that is the kind of plan people want. Let me just read some statistics. The reason for all this is the Democrats have inserted, on the House side, in the bill they call the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act, provisions that would put an administrative burden on health savings accounts. They are trying to kill health savings accounts so we will all end up with Government health care. I already mentioned that we have gone from 1 million people covered by health savings account plans in 2005 to over 6 million today. Thirty-one percent of the people who have these health savings account plans plus insurance were previously uninsured. Eighty-four percent of health savings account policies in the group and individual market provide first-dollar coverage for preventative care. So this claim that health savings accounts keep people from seeking preventative care is totally bogus because the plans are designed that when someone seeks preventative care, diagnostic care, the insurance pays for it and it does not come out of the health savings account. Health savings accounts give people better access to the type of health care they want. We found that it even helps with chronic-disease management. If people have access to $1,000 or $2,000 more per year to use the way they need to for their own health, then they can manage their diabetes or congestive heart failure or other types of illnesses that are often restricted by traditional health insurance. I want to encourage my colleagues--my colleagues who really believe Americans should have the freedom to own their own health insurance and not have to go to the Government for their health care--to help us preserve and promote and expand health savings accounts for those who want them. I want to make it clear, health savings accounts are health insurance. They are just health insurance plans that have savings and insurance with them, so that most of health care can be accessed with dollars of patients doing direct business with their physician, with their pharmacist, with the hospital. It will save millions--even billions--as a nation in administrative costs. Already, Americans have well over $3 billion saved in health savings accounts for future health care needs. This is an idea we need to expand across the country, not to destroy. I would ask particularly my Democratic colleagues on the Senate side not to take up this provision that the House included that will hurt and probably destroy the whole idea of health savings accounts. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for allowing me to speak, and I yield back the time.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I need to start by expressing my disappointment at the misleading and distorted information that was just presented on the floor. Actually, I was amazed at what was just said. The Commerce Committee had come up with an aviation modernization bill with strong bipartisan support. But, like many other bills we have faced with our Democratic colleagues in the majority, some of my Democratic colleagues chose to add special provisions for some interest groups and very wasteful and questionable earmarks, tax earmarks, using unprecedented methods to fund things through changing our Tax Code, things that there is a lot of consternation about: changing a pension plan. The reason this bill has been held up is the majority decided to add things to it that had nothing to do with aviation. We want this bill to come through, and it has strong support.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I object.

Mr. DeMINT. I object.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, over the past couple of weeks, there has been a lot of talk about the lack of progress the Democrat majority in the Senate has made on judicial confirmations in the last couple of years, but I want to thank the majority leader for his promise last night to confirm three judges by Memorial Day. This is certainly welcome news. I hope at least one of those is the nominee for the Fourth Circuit. As we all know, our courts are in crisis. Currently, there are over 40 vacancies on the U.S. Circuit Court, and of those half are judicial emergencies. The consequences of the majority's failure to act on these nominations result in extended judicial vacancies, increased casework, and a delay in verdicts. This obstruction is harmful for the American judicial system and the American people. One of the most important jobs we have here in the Senate is to offer advice and consent to the President's judicial nominees. While I believe all of these nominees deserve an up-or-down vote on the Senate Floor, I rise today specifically to speak on the current judicial vacancies on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the qualified nominees waiting for a vote. The Fourth Circuit of Appeals, which covers South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland, is one-third vacant. Even though the Fourth Circuit is facing so many pronounced vacancies, and there is a critical need for judges, the Democratic leadership has made no effort to move any of the pending nominees. In spite of the number of vacancies, the Fourth Circuit, run by Chief Judge Karen Williams, continues to do a remarkable job. Many of the cases brought before the Fourth Circuit are extremely complex, and the judges must spend a longer amount of time on each of these cases before issuing their opinion. Our judges will not sacrifice quality, but it may take a lot longer for the court to issue its decision. We are lucky that the Fourth Circuit has the leadership it has. They are dedicated and hardworking, clearly, but we cannot continue with this high level of vacancy. I have heard firsthand about the impact these vacancies have on the Fourth Circuit. Appellate courts must have enough judges to fill the panel, and if a seat is vacant, they must fill it somehow. This means judges from other circuits or judges from the district courts must take time away from their families, their caseload, their administrative tasks to fill the spot on the panel. Two of the Fourth Circuit nominees, Mr. Steve Matthews of South Carolina and Mr. Robert Conrad of North Carolina, have the support of their home State Senators and are ready for a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Despite these facts, both nominees have been waiting for over 200 days for a hearing. Let me quote an editorial from the Washington Post in December of 2007 in which they addressed the dire straits of the Fourth Circuit. The Senate should act in good faith to fill vacancies--not as a favor to the President but out of respect for the residents, businesses, defendants, and victims of crime in the region the Fourth Circuit covers. Two nominees--Mr. Conrad and Steve A. Matthews--should receive confirmation hearings as soon as possible. On that note, I wish to spend a couple of minutes telling you about Mr. Steve Matthews from South Carolina. President Bush nominated Steve Matthews in September of 2007, but the Senate Judiciary Committee has failed to hold a hearing on his nomination. Matthews received his undergraduate degree from the University of South Carolina and his law degree from Yale Law School. He is currently the managing director of Haynesworth, Sinkler, and Boyd in Columbia, SC. Prior to joining the Columbia firm, Matthews practiced in the Washington office of Dewey Ballantine and served in the U.S. Department of Justice during President Reagan's second term. During his time at the Department of Justice, Matthews advised then Attorney General Ed Meese and President Reagan on the selection of nominees for Federal judgeships, and served as special counsel to Meese on the Iran Contra investigation. I have personally met with Mr. Matthews several times and know he has the experience, the intellect, and the integrity necessary to serve on one of our Nation's highest courts. We must fulfill our constitutional responsibility to vote on judicial nominations and allow hearings, as well as plain up-or-down votes here on the Senate Floor. The Senate Judiciary Committee has several extraordinary nominees before it, and the Fourth Circuit desperately needs their service. Our courts are in critical need of judges and any inaction on these nominees is irresponsible and puts our Nation's judicial system at risk. Again, I thank the majority leader for committing to at least three by Memorial Day, and I appreciate the opportunity to address this issue. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Senator. I have spoken on judges. I will defer to Senator Hatch and make my comments later.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DeMINT. I appreciate the chairman giving me the time to speak on the bill. I am offering a motion to recommit, which will be up for a vote in just a few minutes, and it is a motion to recommit the technical corrections bill back to the EPW Committee. The purpose of this is clear: Colleagues, we have to stop increasing spending at every point, never cutting anything and never looking for savings. On this Transportation bill, there have been a number of projects, hundreds of millions of dollars worth, that were not needed or wanted. And we need to be reminded that the highway trust fund by next year is going to be over $3 billion in the red. With this Transportation bill, we had an opportunity to save. Yet, instead of doing that, I am afraid this technical corrections bill goes well beyond technical corrections and takes the money that would have been saved from unwanted or unneeded projects and uses it to add new earmarks to the Transportation bill that aren't in the original legislation and adds spending to existing earmarks. My motion would recommit the technical corrections bill to the committee and instruct them to take out any new earmarks and any increases in spending for existing earmarks. What that will do is just leave the base bill, which would be, at that point, technical corrections. That is what this bill is intended to be. So I encourage all my colleagues to show some fiscal restraint and to restore this bill to a technical corrections bill. I thank the Chair, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank the chairwoman and ranking member for setting an example for this body in how a bill should be presented to the Senate--with full disclosure, all documentation. It allows us to have an open and honest debate about any differences. There is no question about what is contained therein and what is not. In this case, we disagree on parts of this, but I don't want to begin without first saying I believe the chairwoman and ranking member have set an example for the rest of the committees. My motion to recommit simply addresses what I believe are serious problems in developing a technical corrections bill that actually changes the legislation from one earmark to another or pluses up earmarks, takes money from an earmark that might be not needed anymore, the project is not wanted, that money is moved somewhere else. While it certainly is correct that the total cost of the bill is about the same, we do need to remember that by next year, we are projecting over a $3 billion shortfall in the trust fund. So instead of adding to earmarks and creating new ones, it makes sense to try to save some of that money so we can fund important infrastructure projects around the country. The motion to recommit sends this bill back to committee with an amendment that says it should be presented back to the Senate where all of the new earmarks are excluded and any additions to funding for existing earmarks is returned to the current level. What that leaves us with is a technical corrections bill, which is what this bill should be. The administration has noted with strong concerns that the majority of the technical corrections bill is devoted to earmarks. It modifies hundreds of earmarks from the legislation that passed in 2005. It effectively creates new earmarks, including a stand-alone section that would provide mandatory funding for a magnetically levitating rail system. The presence of excessive earmarks in the 2005 bill created significant inefficiency in the allocation of resources to fund transportation infrastructure. I have heard regularly from the Department of Transportation of the difficulty in implementing a national transportation system with thousands and thousands of earmarks for special projects that don't necessarily match State priorities. I encourage my colleagues to take a look at the motion to recommit. It does not kill the bill. It simply refocuses on a technical correction perspective rather than adding to earmarks or creating new ones. I thank the chairwoman for the opportunity to offer this and thank both her and the ranking member for setting an example of how a bill should be brought to the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Virginia. (The remarks of Mr. Warner are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to speak on the transportation technical corrections bill, which we will be discussing this week. Later on I will offer a motion to recommit, with some considerations I would like to address now. A lot of us were part of moving this through Congress. It is an important transportation bill, when roads and bridges are in desperate need of funding for repairs and widening. There were over 6000 politically directed earmarks in the original highway bill. Now, the corrections bill involves 500 of those earmarks. I thought we should talk about the bill and what this means, as far as transportation in the United States. First, I want to thank Senators Boxer and Inhofe for all of the work they have done on transparency on this legislation. While I strongly believe we should put an end to the practice of earmarking, if the Senate is going to earmark, it must do it in a transparent manner. I believe the chairwoman and ranking member have set an example for all committees in providing information in a way that people can look at it and debate it. It is all right for us to disagree on whether we like earmarks. In this case, we can do it with full disclosure of what is actually in the bill. The American people deserve to know how their elected representatives are spending their money, and the way this bill handles earmark disclosure helps us do just that. The Senators from California and Oklahoma have disclosed the sponsor, the recipient, and the purpose of the earmarks in this bill, in addition to letters disclosing that the sponsors have no financial interests in the particular earmark. I was also pleased to see that disclosures were made in a timely manner so we could review them before we began consideration of the legislation. They have gone beyond the requirements of the Senate rules, and I applaud them for their commitment to transparency. I hope the other committees are equally committed to transparency. My colleagues have suggested on the floor that this bill is needed so States can move forward with planning and construction of authorized projects from the last highway reauthorization bill. As with all large bills, there were typos and other errors in this bill, and the technical corrections bill we are discussing this week was designed to correct those technical errors and problems. I think that is something, obviously, we need oftentimes to do with most of our legislation. But instead of correcting the errors from the last reauthorization bill, the committee decided to rewrite public law and add contract authority as well as add to spending levels for certain projects, essentially adding new earmarks to the bill. The President's statement of administrative policy regarding this technical corrections bill contains strong language critical of this legislation, and let me quote some from that SAP. The administration notes with strong concern that the majority of the bill is devoted to earmarks. The bill modifies hundreds of earmarks from a bill that passed in 2005, effectively creating new earmarks, including a stand- alone section that would provide mandatory funding for magnetically levitating rail. The effort through H.R. 1195 to modify these earmarks from an authorization that passed only three years ago is a further reflection of those inefficiencies. Therefore, the Administration urges that these provisions be removed from the bill. That is effectively what my motion will address when we offer it later in the week. Again quoting from the administration's position on this bill: The administration urges Congress to restrict the bill to true technical changes. For example, in addition to those noted above, both the Senate-proposed substitute and the underlying bill contain substantive changes to statutory provisions regarding waiver procedures for Buy America requirements that should be removed from the bill because they are not technical corrections. In addition, section 104 of the substitute would repeal section 111(d) of title 23 of the U.S. Code, which allows idling reduction facilities at public rest areas in Interstate rights-of-way. This provision is a policy change, not a technical amendment. Repealing this section of the U.S. Code would eliminate a beneficial initiative first proposed by this administration. We have heard for the past months, and will continue to hear today, that Members of Congress know what is best in their districts--know better than some unelected Federal bureaucrat. If a Member of Congress knows what is best for their district, then why are we debating a 138- page so-called technical corrections package? I suppose some of these are drafting errors, and I do not deny there should always be room for some error in the legislative process. But page after page of corrections does not speak well for our whole earmarking process. The 1982 highway bill had only 10 earmarks. That number rose to 538 in 1991, and 1,800 in 1998. The SAFETEA-LU highway authorization bill we are talking about today contained an inexcusable 6,000 earmarks, at a cost of well over $20 billion and now nearly 500 changes in the technical corrections package. A 2007 report by the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General, requested by Senator Tom Coburn, found that DOT earmarks have increased in number by 1,150 percent from 1996 to 2005--an incredible increase--and, as we can see, a number that has been very difficult for us to manage effectively here in the Congress. This administration has projected that the highway trust fund will have a negative balance of $3.2 billion by 2009 if we continue on the path of outspending the receipts in this account. So piling on the additional authorization levels to projects in this technical corrections bill will only further deplete the highway account and cause the highway trust fund to be bankrupt sooner than projected. I know the case has been made that this technical corrections bill does not increase the overall amount, but as we went back through this and found numerous earmarks that were no longer needed or even wanted, instead of moving that money to savings, we moved it to earmarks, and new earmarks, and to add to additional earmarks at a time when we need to be trying to save money to overcome the projected deficit. Congress needs to take a timeout and examine the country's infrastructure priorities instead of relying solely on Members of Congress transportation earmarks. Of most concern is that many of the earmarks requested and funded in highway authorization bills are neither the most effective nor efficient use of funds. Many of them, such as an earmark for renovating the Apollo Theater, have nothing to do with transportation. Senators and House Members have picked particular projects for funding that they know will result in their gaining political support. They will get more votes in their reelection campaigns for bringing home the bacon, but funding will be redirected from highway projects where it is most needed. This is why I have proposed this motion to recommit, that will send this bill back to the committee and require that the bill be reported back to the Senate with an amendment that eliminates any provision in the bill that increases spending for earmarks that are contained in the SAFETEA bill. Increasing spending for existing earmarks is simply not a technical correction, and such provisions do not belong in this legislation, that is intended to only correct the technical aspects of the bill. Here are a few examples of provisions in this bill that are not technical corrections but are actually inserting new earmarks into law or significantly increasing funding for existing earmarks. Page 18 amends an earmark in current law that provides $800,000 for an intersection project in Pennsylvania by striking the $800,000 designation and increasing the earmark to $2.4 million. That is not a technical correction. On page 19, we amend an earmark in current law that provides Federal funds for widening two blocks of Poplar Street from Park Avenue to 13th Street in Williamson County, IL, by striking that description and inserting the following new earmark, which is to construct a connector road from Rushing Drive north to Grand Avenue in Williamson County. It is not a technical correction. It is a new project and it is the elimination of another one. Page 22 amends an earmark in current law that provides $800,000 to widen State Road 80 in Henderson County, FL, by striking the $800,000 figure and inserting $1.6 million. We double the earmark amount. Page 29 amends an earmark in current law that provides $2.7 million for upgrades to an interchange in Pennsylvania by striking the $2.7 million amount and increasing the earmark to $3.2 million. Page 35 amend a New York earmark in current law that provides $4 million for Miller Highway improvements by striking the existing earmark and inserting the following new earmark: pedestrian paths, stairs, seating, landscaping, lighting, and other transportation enhancement activities along Riverside Boulevard and at Riverside Park South. This is not a technical correction, and it is one of the reasons we are not rebuilding and improving and maintaining bridges in America, because we are focused on things that are not basic infrastructure. Pages 63 and 64 amend a New York earmark in current law that provides $500,000 for design and construction of an access road to Plattsburgh International Airport by striking this description and inserting the following new earmark: preparation, demolition, disposal, and site restoration of Alert Facility on Access Road, Plattsburgh International Airport. So we found we didn't need the money in one area, but we found a new area, instead of saving it, as we apparently need to do to keep the Highway Trust Fund on the path of solvency. The most glaring example of a nontechnical correction made by this bill is the MAGLEV section, which provides $90 million over 2 years in mandatory spending for a MAGLEV rail project from Nevada to California. Under current law, this project was simply between two cities in Nevada, but this technical corrections bill paves the way for extending this project all the way to California and leaves the Federal Government on the hook for paying the price tag. How will this project expand Federal spending? Well, first, it jams all the funding into the last 2 years, which increases the baseline from $30 million in 2009 to $45 million. The way we fund things here is based on year-to-year baselines. It turns the funding from an authorization to direct spending. In the original bill, it allows the funding of a project. Now it requires the funding of a project. It extends the Federal project from Primm, NV, to Anaheim, CA, and it involves the Federal Government in a dubious construction project that will create an unwanted transportation mode, the cost of which will likely expand considerably. Along this same route, a private company has raised billions of dollars to build a high-speed rail corridor from Nevada to California without any taxpayer money. Our role in Government should be to make the private sector work, not to replace it and to compete with it with taxpayer dollars. In addition to increasing Federal funding, this provision inserts the Government into a business that appears to need no propping up from taxpayers. Press reports indicate that the MAGLEV route is nearly identical, as I mentioned before, to a completely privately financed rail project, which is estimated to cost between $3 billion and $5 billion. This legislation would use taxpayer dollars to fund a government project that is in direct competition with an existing privately funded effort. The Government does not need to be replacing private sector involvement. In 2005, the Los Angeles Times had this to say about MAGLEV: The long-running debate over MAGLEV trains is a battle between faith and reason. They have to rely on faith because there is very little evidence of the practicality of these systems. Only one commercial high-speed MAGLEV train exists, covering a 19-mile stretch from Shanghai to Pudong International Airport. Why spend so much money, especially if it's from taxpayers, when you might get more bang for the buck out of cheaper alternatives? That the Primm line has gotten this far is a tribute to the power and determination of the Senate Majority Leader, who undoubtedly sees MAGLEV as promising a new transportation system for pork. The Associated Press also reported a few weeks ago that the country of Germany has canceled its initiative to build a MAGLEV link to the Munich airport, citing escalating costs. Germany's transportation minister told reporters that it was ``not possible to finance the project'' since the cost had more than doubled. I guess anything is possible when it is taxpayer money, but, clearly, building an unproven experimental project, where private money is already accomplishing the same thing, does not make very much sense. In this transportation bill, not only will this experimental rail provision eventually cost billions in Federal funding and insert the Government into the private market, where it doesn't belong, it would most likely also be bad for consumers. According to my last check on the Internet, the nonstop flights from Los Angeles to Las Vegas are 1 hour 10 minutes and cost only $118 for a round trip. That is $59 each way. I ask my colleagues how much these MAGLEV trips will cost. Are we absolutely certain it will cost less than $59 each way? If not, why would not consumers fly? I would hazard a guess here that if we were asking Members of the Senate to invest their own personal money in this project, not one would reach for their wallet. But this is taxpayers' money we are spending on something none of us would do as individuals. Even the administration has weighed in on this provision stating that the bill modifies hundreds of earmarks from a bill that passed in 2005, effectively creating new earmarks, including a stand-alone section that would provide mandatory funding for magnetic levitating rail. The administration urges these provisions be removed from the bill. We are not talking about technical corrections. These provisions increase funding for existing earmarks and create new earmarks. Proponents of this legislation will argue that the bill spends no new Federal dollars and, in fact, even saves taxpayers a few million dollars. While that is true, the bill accomplishes this by rescinding funds left in the Treasury that were never used by a few earmarks previously authorized by Congress. However, it is clear to me that this bill is just another way for Congress to create new earmarks, increase spending for existing earmarks without actually appearing to be doing just that. In addition, by shifting existing funding from one earmark to be used for a completely new earmark, this bill also creates new projects which now rely on the Federal Government to continue their funding in the future. In the long run, this legislation encourages wasteful Washington spending through the broken process of earmarking. Here is an example of a true technical correction included in this legislation. On page 24 of the bill, there is a provision that would strike the word ``country'' and insert the word ``county'' in an earmark for ``New County road on Whidbey Island'' in Washington State. The current law refers to this road as ``New Country Road,'' which was a mistake, and this bill would correct that error by inserting the word ``county.'' Clearly, this is a true technical correction and represents the spirit of what this bill was intended to accomplish, which is to correct technical errors contained in current law. Another argument we hear is that earmarking Federal tax dollars is our ``constitutional obligation.'' Our colleague, Dr. Coburn, wrote an excellent article entitled ``Founders vs. Pork'' addressing this bogus claim. I will not read the article in its entirety, but I commend it to all my colleagues. It contains some excellent quotations which I will share. Thomas Jefferson, in a 1796 letter to James Madison regarding federally funded local projects, said that ``[O]ther revenues will soon be called into their aid, and it will be the source of eternal scramble among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get the most who are the meanest.'' In a 1792 letter to Alexander Hamilton conveying what he believed to be the public's perception of government, George Washington cited worries about the ``increase in the mass of the debt,'' which had ``furnished effectual means of corrupting such a portion of the legislature, as turns the balance between the honest voters[.]'' Hamilton, who famously clashed with Jefferson and Madison on fiscal matters, responded that ``[e]very session the question whether the annual provision should be continued, would be an occasion of pernicious caballing and corrupt bargaining.'' The importance of transparency in Government operations was also recognized by Jefferson. In 1808, he wrote: The same prudence, which, in private life, would forbid our paying our money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the disposition of public moneys. As I said before, I doubt very seriously any Member of this Senate would invest their own money in an unproven technology over a route where there is already going to be private competition. Jefferson also astutely recognized that large amounts of spending would inevitably lead to outside efforts to redirect that money. He wrote in 1801 about the need ``to reform the waste of public money, and thus drive away the vultures who prey upon it[.]'' George Washington noted in 1792 that no mischief is ``so afflicting and fatal to every honest hope, as the corruption of the legislature.'' Congressional approval ratings, as we all know, are now at record lows because taxpayers do not believe we are being honest or open about how we spend their money. One might argue that earmarking is a simpler system. There is really no meddling by bureaucrats, no cost-benefit analysis, no hearing just a big pie that is sliced up into pieces of varying sizes, with the senior Members getting the biggest slice. But this is no way to run a government or a country. This bill proves that the so-called simplicity of the system is not all it is cracked up to be. One of the changes in this bill involves removing an earmark that was not even wanted but was secretly put into a bill after the bill had already passed. Now, that is the sort of technical correction we should be passing right now. Why did it take so long to identify an earmark that was not wanted or needed? Fortunately, in this bill, we could remove it. Senator Coburn has an amendment that will force an investigation of this bizarre process by which an earmark finds its way into a bill that already has passed. I look forward to the findings. I encourage my colleagues to support it. I applaud the committee for providing earmark disclosure, more earmark disclosure than we have seen out of most committees. Senators Boxer and Inhofe are to be commended for their effort they have made to comply with the letter and the spirit of the law. As I said, I hope all the committees will follow example. However, this bill does not have a committee report. In that sense, Senators have been denied the tools we customarily rely on to decipher massive catchall bills such as this. For example, without the ``changes in existing Law'' document, which is contained in all committee reports, we are theoretically supposed to go through each earmark and try to figure out what it is amending. Since it is almost certain that few Members will actually do this beyond projects they inserted in the bill personally, the bill is largely a series of meaningless paragraphs. For example, section 105 of the bill is 63 pages containing 386 earmarks. These earmarks contain such illuminating descriptions as ``In item number 753 by striking $2,700,000 and inserting $3,200,000.'' That is all we know unless we go back to the original bill to figure it out. The earmark description for this one simply says it is from Bill Shuster and gives the SAFETEA-LU section it amends. Even with the list of earmark descriptions, one has no idea what this amendment does without going to the underlying bill. When you look at the law, you see that it has to do with ``Widening of Rt. 22 and SR 26 in Huntingdon. Upgrades to the interchange at U.S. Rt. 22 and SR 26.'' I still have no idea why this project needs a $500,000 plus-up, but at least I have a general idea what the project is. But, again, I do not expect that any of my colleagues actually looked up this earmark. This bill highlights the fact that this is a terrible way to write legislation, where we all decide the different projects we want and force them in a single bill. This bill demonstrates to me and the American people that earmarking is out of control and that the process is inefficient. We are spending time on the Senate floor to pass 138 pages of ``fixes'' to mistakes and errors relating to existing earmarks. I say to my colleagues, we have much more pressing needs that deserve our time and attention, such as providing health insurance to the millions of uninsured across this Nation, making health care more affordable, and passing the FISA reauthorization bill to protect our homeland. Instead, we are spending precious time fixing earmarks--hardly a high priority with taxpayers who are disgusted with the way their hard- earned tax dollars are being wasted now. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Again, it does not strike any earmarks that are in law. It allows all the technical corrections that are included in this bill, but it simply says we would eliminate any new earmarks in this bill and any increases in existing earmarks. I think that is what a technical corrections bill should be. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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