Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up two amendments I have at the desk. They are amendments Nos. 4095 and 4096.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 4094

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

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to speak on two amendments I called up this morning. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. These amendments certainly relate to the consumer product safety bill my colleague from Arkansas has done such a great job ushering through committee and onto the floor. It is clearly a very important issue for us as a nation. Last year, we were reminded a number of times of the problems when the safety of our products is not ensured. We saw some products coming in from other countries that gave us cause for concern, as well as from within our own country. In the food and drug area, we have certainly seen problems there. So we need as a Congress to make sure we do everything we can to ensure the products that are sold in this country, particularly for our children, are safe. This was an issue the House of Representatives took very seriously. They have worked for a number of weeks, if not months, on a consumer product safety bill. Speaker Pelosi was very involved with the bill, as well as Chairman Dingell and Ranking Member Barton. They produced a bill that had been vetted by a number of people. It had support from consumer product groups, as well as from a number of manufacturers, which is key, that we cannot ignore in the Senate. We need to make the products safe, but we also need to make sure we do not put such a burden on American businesses that they cannot create the jobs and grow the opportunities in the future. That is a delicate balancing act which I believe the House achieved. In a remarkable vote, the House voted unanimously to support the consumer product safety bill they had on the floor. That bill does a number of things we talk about here. Let me first read a quote from Chairman Dingell, who is the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It was his committee that worked so hard on this bill. He said, in a New York Times editorial: Let's hope that the Senate acts expeditiously and with the same bipartisan commitment as the House. It is a quote I very much appreciate. We were here in the Senate disturbed, a few weeks ago, when we worked real hard to pass a bipartisan Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that we hoped the House would act on in the same bipartisan fashion. Unfortunately, the House decided they needed to include some provisions, some special interest provisions that allow plaintiffs' lawyers to sue the telecommunications companies that are helping us intercept messages from suspected terrorists. I am afraid we are doing the same thing now on the Senate side that our House colleagues did. We have a very important issue in front of us, which is consumer product safety. The House has sent us a bipartisan bill with clear support from all our constituencies. Yet we have decided on the Senate side to add some special interest provisions, specifically for plaintiffs' attorneys and union bosses. The House bill does a lot of the things I believe in and I think most of my Senate colleagues believe need to be done. First of all, it requires there be third-party testing of children's products for lead and other hazards to ensure that unsafe toys never make it to the shelves. It also requires, as my colleague from Arkansas was mentioning earlier today, that manufacturers place distinguishing marks on products and packaging of children's products to aid in the recall of those products. It can be years later that a product is found to be defective and recalled, and we need to have a way to identify those defective products and recall them and to notify consumers of safety problems. The bill the House passed unanimously also replaces the Consumer Product Safety Commission's aging testing lab with a modern, state-of- the- art lab that will allow them to find which toys are safe and which ones are not. It improves the public notice about recalls so we have a better system of letting the public know when we find a safety problem. It preserves a strong relationship between industry and the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ensure that industry continues to share information we can use to determine the safety of products. It also restores the full panel of five Commissioners to the Commission. This bill is a bill we should pass in the Senate. We know if we go through the process this week of adding amendments and changing the bill, even if we ultimately pass a bill, we are looking at weeks if not months in conference with the House to come out with a final bill. We have an opportunity. If we pass this amendment, which is a substitute to the underlying bill, passing the House bill, we can send a new bill, a consumer product safety bill, to the President that can be implemented right away. Again, this is a bill that passed 407 to nothing in the House, with the Democratic leadership taking the initiative on this bill and Republicans agreeing. What we are doing here in the Senate is adding a number of provisions that are not for consumer product safety but designed to create loopholes for special interests. One is the whistleblower protection provision, which I have a separate amendment to strike. There are ways we can fix this provision. We have a Federal standard we apply to our own agencies that does not create an open-ended litigation process but focuses more on protecting those who make us aware of a problem that an employee tells us about. We need to do that in industry. I am certainly willing to work with the majority on this issue. I believe Senator Cornyn has an amendment that applies that Federal standard, which would improve this legislation, provide whistleblower protection, but at the same time not create a playground for plaintiffs' attorneys as well as create an opening, as this bill does, for disgruntled employees to wreak havoc inside an organization. The way the bill is set up, any employee--who may be aware he is getting ready to lose his job for incompetence or something else--can complain about a safety issue, which may or may not be real, and that employee is basically guaranteed a job for life because this bill does not allow a company to fire someone who complained about a safety problem. Even if there was not a safety problem, all the employee has to do is say they had a reasonable belief there was a safety problem. Folks, it is hard enough to do business in this country today. It seems everything we do in this Congress makes it more expensive and more difficult for our companies to compete in a global economy. Countries throughout Europe lowered their corporate tax rate to 25 percent. China has lowered its corporate tax rate. We continue to keep ours at a level that makes it very difficult for our companies to compete. We need to realize, as we seek consumer product safety, particularly safety for children, we do not need to put unnecessary burdens on our companies and make it more difficult for them to operate in this country. The whistleblower provision in this bill does not improve consumer product safety, but it does create a potential for increased problems with folks who are manufacturing in this country. We need to realize foreign-based companies are not faced with this same provision. It is only those that are American owned, operating here, that have to follow this whistleblower law the Senate is attempting to add in the consumer product safety legislation. So what we have are American companies at a disadvantage to companies in other parts of the world that do not have to comply. My amendment would strike this provision. Perhaps we can reach a compromise and protect the whistleblower without damaging our competitiveness as a nation. Mr. President, these are two amendments, and I have a number of others that get at some of the problems in the bill. But, again, I commend the chairman for his work and the commitment by this body to improve consumer safety in this country. I hope we can work together in a bipartisan fashion to create a bill that is focused on safety and not so much on doing favors for our different constituencies. With that, Mr. President, I yield back and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I want to thank you and all my Democratic colleagues for allowing me some time on the floor to discuss the progress in the war. This allows us as Republicans to contrast our position versus the position of retreating and announcing that we are giving up on Iraq. We have heard a lot of talk here today, and apparently there is too high a pricetag for freedom. Certainly you can make an argument that it is expensive to be in Iraq, just as other wars have been expensive and deadly to our country. World War II, the importance of that war can never be underestimated, and the price on it could not be estimated. The fact that we need to fight wars to show our strength as a nation has been proven time and time again. I am worried that the Senate is not united in the need to show strength against the war on terror. Last year at this time, my Democratic colleagues had said that the war in Iraq was lost, and implicitly the war against terror, since the front line today on the battle against terror is in Iraq. It was announced here on the Senate floor that the war was lost, that we were in a hopeless civil war in Iraq. Since then we have had about 40 votes, or different variations of votes to cut funding, to withdraw, to retreat, sending a terrible signal to our troops and our enemies that we lack the resolve that is necessary to win this war. Whether we call it running and retreating or giving up or saying America cannot win, all of those words and ideas emanated from the Senate floor from the majority side in the past year. Many even voted against the funds to surge the troops that has proven to be such a success over the last several months. Some of the funding as late as the end of last year was held hostage to gross earmarks that were unnecessary in a time of war. How can we talk about the war on terror being so expensive when we held those funds hostage to other things that were certainly not a high priority? I am afraid my Democratic colleagues, at least many of them--I know this is not true for all of them, but too many clearly do not understand the threat of terrorism in our world today and what that means to our country and our freedom. Too many have forgotten the importance of a strong military and how that results in peace around the world when nations respect the power of the United States of America. But who can respect America any longer, after stating our resolve to stand Iraq up as a free and stable democracy, if in the middle of that challenge we decide to retreat and withdraw? The very fact that we have talked about it so many times has sent a signal of weakness that has empowered our enemies and likely put more of our forces at risk. I hope this is the last time we do it this year. Everyone has a right to dislike the war, to say it is too expensive. But our responsibility here in the Senate is much different than the average citizen. When we send a signal that we are not supporting the key mission of our military, we do much to demoralize our troops, and to strengthen the resolve of our enemies. Again, I hope this is the last time we will do it. My Democratic colleagues cannot have it both ways. They continue to try to say they support the troops, but everything they actually do undermines them, pulls the rug right out from under what they are trying to do. It's a lot of empty rhetoric. But in the last week we have seen from the Democrats on the House side, a key essential part of our intelligence system is being threatened because we will not give the administration the tools to use our technology to intercept messages from terrorists who might be planning to attack us or our interests around the world. I returned from Iraq a couple of weeks ago. This is my third trip. I saw a marked difference from anything I had ever seen before. The statistics have been talked about here on the floor of the Senate: The monthly attacks have decreased 60 percent since June of last year; civilian deaths are down over 75 percent in the last year; al-Qaida in Iraq remains a threat but their power and ability to do damage has been greatly diminished. I wish to talk a little bit about the trip. I joined Senator Ensign and Senator Tom Coburn on this trip. Once we landed in Baghdad, we took a helicopter to a small community about 30 miles south of Baghdad. This was a community that was controlled and terrorized by al-Qaida up until about 3 months ago. You would not even go down Main Street in an armored vehicle, we were told by our troops there. Yet we landed at an American outpost there, American soldiers were living in that community a couple of blocks from the Iraqi Army outpost where they were living in the community, and we walked out of our outpost on the main street and talked to the citizens who had opened their markets, talked to the Iraqi soldiers, and talked to the citizens who were helping to patrol the area. In this picture here I am talking with one of the local sheiks, Sheik Ali, who told us that al-Qaida only a few months before had dragged his father in front of him and shot him and killed him. Next to him is an Iraqi soldier whom we helped to train. They are as sharp as any soldier you would expect to see. This community is well protected. Colonel Ferrell, who is in charge of the outpost, who took us down the main street, was giving us briefings and we were talking to the sheik as well as the Iraqi soldiers. They were proud to tell us what was happening there. The sheiks and the local tribes are the key to working with the American surge and have freed much of Iraq in the last 6 months. These local leaders have turned against al-Qaida, because al-Qaida has done such damage and such brutality to their families and their communities that they are now talking with us and helping us to defeat al-Qaida in that area there. I have another photo here. I know it is difficult to see. But we were walking down a street that was empty except for bodies a few months ago. These little markets have opened. As we walked down the street, in this case it was mostly American soldiers walking with us, except for this group--these young men in the green jackets which they called in this community the ``Sons of Iraq.'' Our military pays them to help patrol every day. When I asked the colonel, when all of these citizens came running out to us, why were they not worried about them blowing themselves up and killing all of the soldiers and us who were walking down the street, the colonel responded: Because we know everyone who is here. A lot of these folks from the markets came out and hugged our soldiers. I tell you, I couldn't have felt better to see our soldiers so appreciated in that area, to see these young men with walkie- talkies. Their job is to patrol, to make sure if any stranger comes to the community, that they notify the Iraqi Army and the American Army so that these people can be checked out. We saw a number of trucks with mattresses and furniture piled high, of people moving back to this little community--who had moved out months and years before because al-Qaida had run them out. We walked down several blocks. Probably 80 to 100 markets have reopened, and the people were glad to see us. They were cheerful. They feel as if they have their community back. We have not won this war yet, but we can see everywhere we go that Iraqis are standing up and taking back their country for themselves. And our troops, along with the Iraqi troops whom we helped to train, and the Sons of Iraq are guarding and protecting their community. I want to talk about one Marine here. This is Major Alston Middleton, who actually went to Porter-Gaud High School in Charleston. He is a Marine working in the base where we are training Iraqi soldiers. Every 3 weeks we are producing 2,500 new Iraqi soldiers who go straight from that camp to the battlefield. They are being trained with the same equipment and arms they will be using when they get there. He is proud of what he is doing. Everywhere we went, our troops wanted to prove to us that what we were doing was necessary, it was right, it was working, and we could win it. It was important to them that we know it. When I asked them what do they need that they do not have, the answer I got--more than any other answer--was: Do not forget us. Some of the rhetoric on this floor has sent the signal to our troops that we are forgetting them and do not appreciate what they are doing. This Marine, away from his family, like all of the other Marines, sailors, soldiers, and airmen we see there, many of them away from their children and spouses for over a year, we know what sacrifices they are making. But I am afraid these Marines are not respected in some parts of this country. I am afraid the Democrats on the Berkeley City Council in California--and some here may say that is an isolated situation, but it is not, because they are taking their signals from what they hear right here on the Senate floor. They called our Marine recruiters unwelcome intruders. They called them thugs. They called them Bush's murderers. When you see the video and what they called our Marines, while our Marines are sweating and bleeding and dying for us and our freedoms. What the Berkeley city council did was not freedom of speech. The protesters had their freedom of speech for months, but that wasn't good enough for them. They wanted the power of government behind them to support their point of view at the expense of the Marines and all Americans who appreciate our Marines and love what they do. We need to recognize that some of the things that have been said right here are sending a signal to people like the Berkeley city council to show disrespect for people like Major Alston Middleton, who is willing to put his life on the line for us. I have introduced a bill we call the Semper Fi Act, named after the Marine motto, which means ``always faithful.'' It is just to rattle the cages a little bit of the city council in Berkeley, to tell them: OK, if you want to take exception to our Federal mission there in Berkeley, certainly you don't deserve these secret earmarks we have sent to Berkeley in the last several months. But the Marines are always faithful and always have been. They are faithful to our country, to each other. We need to be faithful to them and all those who are fighting for us. This discussion on the floor is again trying to have it both ways, that we support our troops, but then we don't. We don't support them when we don't support the very mission we have asked them to give their lives for. We can't have it both ways. We can't keep having this discussion which questions, before the whole world, the very mission we have asked of our soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, and Coast Guardsmen and all the civilian support staff we have in Iraq and Afghanistan and throughout the world who are fighting the war on terror. We are going to win the war on terror because of the resolve we have to be free and peaceful as a nation. I hope we will get the message here that our troops have in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world, that sometimes you have to fight for the freedom we have here in this country. Now is the time we have to fight. The fact that we have shown resolve in the last year has resulted in clear successes in Iraq that are undeniable. We know we can win this battle, but this battle will not be the last one. The terrorists are going to be here for a generation or more. If they are not in Iraq, they are going to be in Afghanistan or they will be in Africa. They are going to be somewhere, if they are not here, doing their terrorist deeds against the peaceful people of the world. We have to show resolve. Our enemies must know that we will never stop until we root them out and do away with them. I also want to make one last comment because the folks from South Carolina are in so many ways very involved with the effort in Iraq. In fact, over the last several years the airmen at Charleston Air Force Base flying C-17s carry more of the cargo, supplies, and arms into Iraq than any other base in our country. This picture is one of the crews that flew us out of Afghanistan back to Kuwait on our way home. But we actually had three teams out of Charleston that moved us from Kuwait to Baghdad, out of Baghdad and to Afghanistan and back. They are proud of what they do. They wanted us to know, and me to tell you, that they believe this mission is important and that we can win it. Every day they save lives and deliver freedom. All they need is our support, not our empty rhetoric, our real support and our belief in them and what they are doing. I came back with that belief and that resolve, that what we are doing is right. If we continue what we are doing, we will win, and we will continue to set the terrorists back on their heels and keep our country safe. I thank the men and women at Charleston Air Force Base who are making all Americans proud as they serve all over the world on their missions. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of the chairman on the need to improve Indian health care. It is clear from the Government Accounting Office study that there is no doubt Indian health is suffering and there are many reforms that are desperately needed. I wish to talk about several amendments we proposed that we think will help the bill. One is related to what Senator Dorgan was just talking about and the fact that there is just not enough money currently to provide the health care that is needed for many Indians across the country today. Unlike a lot of other Federal support for health care, Indian health care provides 100 percent coverage to all members of tribes across the country, regardless of income level. The problem that creates at a time when we are offering new programs and reforms is we are not offering enough money to actually support all the programs that are in this new bill. My amendment No. 4073, which we call the Indian gaming amendment, would allocate the scarce resources to the poorer tribes by excluding some of the richer tribes that benefit from class III or casino-style gambling. Many of us have looked at the statistics. Revenues from Indian casino gambling have surpassed $12 billion, and many members of these tribes will receive income from these casinos from $30,000 to over $300,000. There are clear discrepancies in the income in the tribes across the country, and in designing Indian health care reform, it is important that we recognize that fact. In 2001, there were 290 Indian casinos across 28 States that brought in more than $12.5 billion with more than $5 billion in profit. To put this in context, the average family in South Carolina makes around $50,000 a year. These families, sometimes on their own, sometimes through their employers, have to pay and help pay for their health care and many times deductibles and copays. The average income in the tribes that have casino gambling is generally much higher than that amount. Yet we are providing free health care for these tribes. This amendment would exclude from the new programs in the underlying bill those tribes with casino gambling, class III gambling, which would take the money that is provided in the bill and allocate it to the poorer tribes, which uses just basic common sense. If we have a limited amount of money to go around, let's target those tribes with the greatest poverty and the greatest need and allow those tribes with the highest incomes to participate in purchasing their own health care. That is amendment No. 4073. We will vote on that amendment today. Let me address another amendment that will be voted on today; that is, amendment No. 4070 which recognizes that some of the programs in the bill that are designed for injury prevention or safety have actually been used in the past by Government agencies to promote antifirearm programs, gun buyback programs, or programs that generally stigmatize the ownership of guns for collecting, hunting, or self- defense. This amendment provides that none of the funds in the bill may be used to fund antifirearm programs, gun buyback programs, or programs aimed at discouraging or stigmatizing the private ownership of firearms for collecting, hunting, or self-defense. That is basically the language in the bill. We know from programs we have looked at before--we have legislation, for instance, that we passed that would prohibit the Centers for Disease Control from doing exactly the same thing; that is, using money that is supposed to be used for safety programs or other injury prevention and actually use it to promote a political agenda which is an anti-second-amendment agenda. This is another amendment we will vote on today. So two amendments we will be voting on today after the cloture motion vote is the Indian gaming amendment that would exclude those tribes that have the revenue from casinos, as well as the other amendment which would prohibit funds from being used to stigmatize the ownership of guns. Mr. President, I wish to address another amendment which is pending to this bill, which is what we call the health savings account choice. This amendment would simply make another choice available to Indians in the purchase of their health care. Right now, they have most of the options that we have at the Federal level in our Federal employees plan, but they do not yet have a health savings account option which we have added to our Federal programs. This simply would allow Indians the same choice that we have. They could purchase a PPO or other plans-- managed care, HMO, or with this amendment, they could also have a health savings account with a high-deductible plan. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I am actually working with the chairman on the possibility that this amendment could be accepted and avoid a vote on the amendment tomorrow; otherwise, we will be voting on it tomorrow before final passage. I wish to make a few comments on a second-degree amendment that I added to one of these amendments the week before we left last week which we call the Semper Fi amendment. This is an amendment that is not germane and will fall after cloture but still deserves some comment. The Semper Fi amendment is named in honor of the marine motto, which means ``always faithful,'' and it is a bill which I introduced after the Berkeley, CA, city council voted to refer to our marines as unwelcome intruders and had proposed that they leave town--that their recruiting office actually leave town. When I heard of this, it immediately angered me and we developed this bill which would simply take away about $2 million of wasteful Federal earmarks, which were not voted on in the Senate or the House, but were added as what we call report language. We are not trying to take away all their Federal funding but simply to say, if they are not going to respect our marines or their mission, which part of it is recruiting, then certainly they should not be the beneficiary of taxpayer-funded earmarks, and certainly those that aren't necessary. When I first introduced this bill, it was more to make a point and maybe rattle the cages of the city council, because I know all the people in Berkeley don't feel this way. If anyone looked at the video-- and it was one of the most watched videos on YouTube--you could see person after person stepping up and maligning our marines and the job they are doing, not only in Iraq but throughout history, and referring to them as murderers and thugs, unthinkable things being said about the same marines who provided them their freedom of speech. Some have said by my introducing this bill I am against freedom of speech, and that is not it at all. In fact, the anti-American group Code Pink had been demonstrating for months in front of the marine recruitment office there in Berkeley, and I have no problem with that. They have every right. But they wanted more than freedom of speech, they wanted the power of the local government behind them, to give them an advantage over those who supported the marines, supported their mission, and supported our country. So the city council voted to give Code Pink a free parking place in front of the marine recruitment office, and also voted to give them a permit to use a bullhorn, a megaphone, to shout down any who would want to come into that recruitment office. That is not free speech. That is a government- sponsored political agenda that took the side of a few liberal demonstrators against traditional Americans and the marines who have fought for our freedom of speech. My amendment got a fair amount of attention and a lot of supporters here in the Senate, which I appreciate. The same bill was also introduced in the House by a number of Republicans. I have been surprised at the response we have gotten--literally thousands of phone calls and e-mails and letters. What this has exposed to me is it is not only a single event, but it has exposed a raw wound not only of our marines but everyone serving in uniform, and their families. I have heard it when I have been in Iraq, more than once, when I ask our soldiers, marines, and airmen what they need, and the response has often been: Don't forget us. The letters and e-mails I have gotten have indicated the same thing, that finally some are standing up for those who are fighting for our freedoms. I was surprised by the response. I have gotten letters at home from mothers who have sent me pictures of their marines, thanking those of us who have stood up for their marines. I have agonized over the fact that they need someone to stand up for them. But when I go back and see what was said in this Chamber and the House Chamber, and what governments such as the city of Berkeley have done, it should come as no surprise to us that there are doubts in the minds of those who put on the uniform that we support them, that we believe in what they do, and that we support their constitutional mission to recruit and to talk about what we offer in our services. People--Americans--are concerned about this. We have tried to get the Semper Fi act on the floor for an up-or-down vote, and we have not been able to do so. We tried to pass it by unanimous consent, which got 100 percent Republican support but was blocked on the Democratic side. I added it to an amendment to this bill, to try to get a vote, but it will fall after we vote for cloture. I promise the marines and all those in uniform that I am going to continue to persist until we get a vote on this, because it is not just about this amendment, it is not just about those who support it, it is about letting those who put on the uniform and who are willing to fight for our freedoms know we stand behind them. When any government, at any level, takes a position against them, it is our responsibility here in the Congress to stand up for those marines and those fighting men and women and not to allow them to be taken advantage of and intimidated and bullied by some local government such as we saw in Berkeley. I have been happy to see some local governments across the country actually pass resolutions in support of the marine recruiters, and I appreciate any across this country who stand and make a statement on behalf of those who are fighting for our freedom. Again, I emphasize that anyone who wants to speak out in protest against marine recruiters, against the Iraq war, or anything, it is their free right. But when government, whether it is a local government or a State government, takes a position against our Federal constitutional amendment to defend this country, which requires the recruitment of marines, soldiers, airmen, and Coast Guard, that is part of our job. It is not freedom of speech when a local government takes a position against what we are charged to do here at the Federal level. I encourage all those parents, all those in uniform, that the majority of those here in the Senate, in the House, and across this country respect and appreciate what you are doing every day. I got back from Iraq last week, with 2 days on the ground, and I know I speak for all my colleagues when I say I was never prouder of my country and what I do here than when I stood with those in uniform who are sacrificing, in many instances, more than a year away from their family, and some on second and third tours. They are fighting for us and we need to stand up for them. I am going to continue to persist until my colleagues give me a chance to stand with our marines and to support the Semper Fi bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, the underlying Indian health care bill allows Federal funds to be used for certain health promotion activities which include injury prevention, personal safety, and violence prevention. My amendment would simply say that none of these funds in the bill may be used to fund any firearm programs, gun buyback programs, or programs aimed at discouraging or stigmatizing the private ownership of firearms for collecting, hunting, or self-defense purposes, which are important to the Indian community. So that is my amendment.

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I filed a number of technical improvements to this bill, which I wish to work on with the chairman to see if we can resolve these without a vote. These are very small wording amendments, in some cases, that I would like the chairman and his staff to look at before I call them up, because I think it is very unlikely we will need votes on these particular amendments. Amendment No. 4067 to Amendment No. 3894

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect to the Bingaman amendment No. 3894 and I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect to amendment No. 4070, and I call up amendment No. 4080 as a second- degree amendment.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, we will talk about it and get the vote later on. I want to say a few words about this amendment. My amendment is identical to the Semper Fi Act, which I introduced along with Senators Allard, Bond, Burr, Chambliss, Coburn, Cornyn, Inhofe, Martinez, McConnell, Vitter, and probably a number of other Members. Since the bill that is pending now will probably be the last vote before the recess, I think it is important that we vote on this Semper Fi amendment. Last week, when I introduced the bill, the majority leader did not recess so that we could not get this on the calendar. This is an important bill, which I will explain in a minute. We also tried to move it by unanimous consent through the hotline process, and all of the Republicans approved the bill, but apparently someone on the majority side is holding it. That is why it is important that this amendment be part of the bill we are considering today. The Semper Fi Act would rescind all earmarks, or specially designated spending projects, contained in the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Omnibus Appropriations Act for the city of Berkeley and entities located therein, and redirects those funds to the U.S. Marine Corps. For those who have not been paying attention, the Berkeley City Council recently voted to ask the U.S. Marine Corps to vacate their recruiting office in town, and that if they chose to stay they did so as ``uninvited and unwelcome intruders.'' During debate of the resolution, one council member called the Marines ``the President's own gangsters'' and ``trained killers.'' Another said the Marines had given the country ``horrible karma'' and said they had a history of ``death and destruction.'' In a document drafted to support the resolution against the Marines, the council stated: ``Military recruiters are sales people known to lie to and seduce minors and young adults into contracting themselves into military service with false promises regarding jobs, job training, education and other benefits.'' After voting to insult the men and women who fight and bleed for their freedom, the city council cast another ridiculous vote in favor of giving the radical protest group Code Pink a parking space directly in front of the Marine Corps recruiting station. They also voted to give Code Pink a sound permit for protests in front of the Marine Corps building. The city council stated in the resolution that they ``encourage all people to avoid cooperation with the Marine Corps recruiting station'' and to ``applaud'' Code Pink for working to ``impede, passively or actively'' the work of the Marines Corps in Berkeley. Frankly, I just returned from a visit to Iraq, saw our marines on the ground and what they were doing. It is inconceivable to me that any governing body in this country would say such things to our marines. Code Pink is a fringe organization that distinguishes itself by attacking American policy, while defending dictator Hugo Chavez. The group is so disrespectful that they have no problems demonstrating in front of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Medical Center with signs reading ``Maimed for a lie.'' The council's resolution sparked an escalation of anti-Marine protests. Code Pink organizer Zanne Joy points to the city council as justification for the escalation. She said that ``anything legal is justified if it succeeds in persuading the Marine Corps to move its recruiting station out of Berkeley.'' According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Code Pink protesters have been heard shouting at young men who are trying to enter the recruiting station, ``You guys are just cannon fodder!'' and ``They want to train you to kill babies!'' It is sad to see a city like Berkeley moving so far left. The city in which the legendary World War II Pacific Theater Commander, Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, established the Naval ROTC in the fall of 1926 is now sadly a shell of its former self, thanks to its elected leadership. This is disappointing, but in a republican form of government, it must be up to local voters to change their leadership. However, this particular case became the business of all Americans when they insulted our troops and their constitutional mission to defend our country; while coming to the Federal Government asking for special taxpayer-funded handouts. Over $2 million was secretly tucked away for Berkeley earmarks in the 2008 Omnibus appropriations bill, projects that were never voted on or debated. I do not believe a city that has turned its back on our country's finest deserves $2 million worth of pork barrel projects. So my amendment revokes these earmarks. Included in the $2 million worth of pork are some particularly wasteful projects. One earmark provides gourmet organic lunches to schools in the Berkeley School District. While our Marines are making due with MREs of Sloppy Joe and chili with beans, Berkeley students will get Federal tax dollars to design meals that promote ``environmental harmony.'' Chez Panisse's menu features ``Comte cheese souffle with mache salad'', ``Meyer lemon eclairs with huckleberry coulis''; and ``Chicory salad with creamy anchovy vinaigrette and olive toast''. That is unacceptable. Are we to understand that the city that has been home to many of the country's most rich and famous cannot afford to pay for its own designer school lunches? Another $975,000 earmark is for the Matsui Center for Politics and Public Service at U.C. Berkeley, which may include cataloging the papers of the late Congressman Robert Matsui. Is it really necessary to tax the paychecks of Marines so we can earmark nearly $1 million for a school that is already sitting on a $3.5 billion endowment? Let me be clear, my amendment does not cut off all Federal funds to the city of Berkeley, though I am sure most Americans would feel that is justified. It merely rescinds wasteful earmarks. Berkeley is free to compete with other towns and cities across America for merit-based Federal grants. Actions have consequences. When the Berkeley City Council decided to insult the Marines in a time of war, it was a $2 million decision. Especially in a time of war, we cannot just allow cities to play insulting games at our troops' expense while continuing to shower them with congressional favors. On Tuesday, the city council met to revisit its ridiculous actions. Hundreds of military supporters and antiwar protesters gathered at Berkeley City Hall. Berkeley police reported four arrests before the meeting began, all misdemeanors. Police said there were minor scuffles between the antiwar and promilitary camps. An American flag was set aflame outside the city council chambers, damaging a pair of bicycles. When the council meeting finally started, more than 100 speakers took turns at the podium. In a sense, what happened in Berkeley was a quintessential American experience, a spirited exchange and protest followed by debate and democratic action. And while I find some of the views and behavior of many of the protestors repugnant, the exchange itself is a solemn reminder of those who have sacrificed so much to preserve our freedom, especially our freedom of speech. Let me be clear. I do not question the sincerity of anyone on either side of the issue. I think there is genuine concern among many in this country about the war. But while we can respect the legitimate worries about the war and can respect the sincerity of even the most radical protestors, we must recognize that words have meaning and actions have consequences. Some of the hateful words that have come out of Berkeley, CA, have had real consequences on our troops, their families, and our recruiting. One of those who spoke at the city council meeting was Debbie Lee of Arizona, whose son Marc was the first Navy SEAL to die in the Iraq war. She demanded an apology from the council, and she said: My son gave up his life for you. Lee told the council, as she clutched his framed picture, ``I'm appalled at what you did,'' referring to the council's vote on Marine recruiters. Debbie Parrish, another military mom whose son Victor is currently serving in Iraq, said to the Berkeley City Council: It is despicable what you said about our military. It is very, very sad. Shame on you. After all the testimony from the military supporters and families, the Berkeley City Council could only muster the votes to not send a letter insulting the U.S. Marines by calling them ``uninvited and unwelcomed intruders.'' Let's be clear. They did not apologize for the letter. They just didn't mail it. Of course, the sending of a letter at this point is inconsequential given that the text of the letter has been running on national television for a week. The city council also modified one of its past resolutions to ``recognize the recruiters' right to locate in our city and the right of others to protest or support their presence.'' But the resolution also stated that the city council opposes ``the recruitment of our young people into this war.'' The resolution proposing a formal apology to the Marines failed. The city council also voted to let four additional items passed at last week's meeting stand. One resolution encouraged all people to avoid cooperation with the Marine Corps recruiting station. A second one requested that the city attorney investigate if the Marines are in violation of Berkeley's policy against discrimination based on sexual orientation. In addition, two resolutions giving the radical antiwar group Code Pink a weekly parking space and a weekly sound permit to protest the Marine recruiting station were upheld by the council's decision. It was my hope that the city would apologize and revoke its previous resolutions and move on. The council chose not to do that. We have no choice but to acknowledge the reality of what they have done and to defend our military recruiters who are doing the job we asked them to do. If we don't take action, we will be sending a message to other towns or cities that they can use their power to try to influence U.S. foreign policy, thwarting our recruitment efforts. This issue is not about free speech. It is about a city that has shown total disdain for our Armed Forces and used its official government powers to harass our military as they try to keep our country safe. And this amendment is not about forcing the city to change its mind. It is about whether we are going to shower the city with favors, with special goodies that do not meet national needs. I think the American people have spoken loudly and clearly that they do not believe that should be the case. There is a video with clips of the city council meeting on YouTube. It has been viewed by over 200,000 people. It is the 70th most viewed video this week and the 11th most viewed video in news and politics, with 767 people posting comments overwhelmingly in support of the legislation. People are paying attention. I am amazed at the response received regarding my public outrage over the city of Berkeley's behavior. My office has received thousands of calls and letters from military supporters all over the country. On Wednesday afternoon, I received a call from Sgt James Strowe of the U.S. Marine Corps. Sergeant Strowe is currently fighting to protect our freedom in Kuwait. Sergeant Strowe understands what the Marine recruiters in Berkeley are going through quite well because he served as a recruiter himself for 7 years. And he just told me his folks serving with him wanted to thank those of us who were standing up for them while they were fighting for our country. After talking with the sergeant, I decided it would be a good idea to call the marines at the Berkeley recruiting station to ask how they were holding up amidst all the controversy. I talked to GSgt Rick O'Frente, who seemed to be taking the events in stride. He even said a number of citizens from Berkeley had come into the recruitment office, brought them food, and some had apologized for the actions of the council. I guess I have said enough about all of what we are hearing. I have pages and pages of comments from people who are asking us to stand up for our marines while they are fighting for us, and we will be asking again for votes as part of the deliberations on this package. Mr. President, now that I think the chairman has had a chance to understand in more detail what this bill is about, I will once again ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment and the Bingaman amendment.

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

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment and the Bingaman amendment.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Senator Specter has correctly stated the conversation which we had after the floor debate and we agreed it would be useful to have this discussion to clear up the record. As I told Senator Specter privately and now state publicly, I was in no way suggesting that his support for these programs resulted from campaign contributions or political support. My reference to the ``culture of corruption'' was not intended to suggest that there was any corruption involved in this matter. In my statement, I was specific in not suggesting inappropriate motivations when I said ``motivations are generally good.'' I was also careful to focus on the ``appearance'' and not the reality by noting it ``has alarmed the American people.'' As many know, my objection to earmarks has to do with the system itself, not the people who participate in it. While Senator Specter and I naturally have differences on issues of public policy, which is to be expected in an institution like the Senate, I have worked with him during my tenure in the Senate of more than 3 years and do not question his integrity.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the economic stimulus package we are discussing in the Senate. I certainly appreciate the concern the President and all of us have in the House and Senate about our economy and wanting to do everything we can to make sure we avoid an economic slowdown or recession that creates so much hardship through the loss of jobs and, in many cases, a loss of homes. It is something we definitely need to address. It is equally important, as we look at our economic situation, to make sure we allow economic growth and prosperity to work for more people. It is not just about our economic situation as a whole growing but making sure everyone can share in that prosperity. It is important, as we look at the best way to stimulate the economy and keep it going, to remember that good jobs and a good economy depend on successful companies making good profits. In order for that to happen, we have to create a good business environment. Our goal as a Congress should be to make sure America is the best place in the world to do business. Unless we do that, we will continue to lose ground to countries all over the world. It is going to be increasingly difficult to sustain long-term economic growth. The world is becoming increasingly competitive. We hear it every day. We hear from Asia and India which are actually courting businesses with incentives to encourage companies to locate in their countries, creating a good business environment with less regulation and less taxes so that people will bring their manufacturing plants, their people, and their capital to their countries. It is working. Even stodgy old Europe that we imagine to be a high-tax and highly regulated network of countries is changing to be more competitive in the world economy. They have lowered their corporate tax rate to an average of about 25 percent. Some of their countries such as Ireland have gone down close to 10 percent and have seen remarkable economic growth as they have lowered their tax rate. Why is this country not responding in the same way? It hasn't been too long since I have been in the private sector working with businesses. I continue to hear the same sentiment. If we are going to do business in America today, before we get to the equipment and the people actually making the products or providing services, a medium- sized American company today is likely to have a large tax department. It could spend millions on dealing with our Tax Code. We have the most complex tax system in the world and probably the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Some will say it is second. Some say it is first. But we are definitely near the top at around 35 percent. So they start with a large tax department. Then most of our companies also have large legal departments because we are the most litigious society in the world. The most liability for any country is to do business in America. It is not unusual to talk to successful, well-known American companies that are dealing with hundreds, if not thousands, of lawsuits at the same time. So they keep a full-time fleet of lawyers and law firms on retainer dealing with the lawsuits and the legal situations. These same companies also have large human resource and compliance departments to deal with all of our regulations--some of them good, many unnecessary. A lot of regulations related to capital and reporting, such as Sarbanes-Oxley, are costing companies millions of dollars unnecessarily because Congress is unwilling to fix those things we know are wrong. So there is a large tax department, a large legal department, a large human resource compliance and regulatory department, before we get to manufacturing and actually making things. We are making it very difficult for our companies to compete. Add to that the cost of energy which is one of the highest in the world. That goes back to bad policy as well. For years we have known we have large oil and natural gas reserves. We have known we could develop more nuclear generation of electricity. Yet we have not allowed nuclear plants to be developed. We have large reserves of oil in Alaska, which we have consistently voted down in the Congress, and natural gas we don't go after. Therefore, we are not only spending hundreds more for every family for gasoline for cars or oil to heat homes or more for electricity, we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year out of this country that could support our economy yet is supporting the Middle East and other economies around the world. Yet we will not change the policy. We will not develop our own energy resources. Instead, we are making it harder to produce automobiles in this country, putting the burden on them consistently. Now, instead of trying to fix some of the systemic policy problems, we are talking about an economic stimulus plan which I have yet to hear, at least on the Republican side in our private meetings, one Republican defend as good policy. Maybe some will come out here and do so. But everyone on both sides is talking about good politics. We are doing nothing for long-term growth. We are doing nothing to create a simpler, more predictable Tax Code or reducing our regulation or litigation. What we are going to do in time for the election is to get a check in the hands of as many people as we can, and we are borrowing it from the future. The debt is growing. We are going to borrow the money to send checks home to Americans. In 10 years on the present course, bonds for the American Government will be rated as junk bonds in the world because we continue to look at the next election rather than the future of the country. It is obvious what we could do to develop a long-term, sustained economic growth pattern. If we made the current tax rates permanent, the ones we know have stimulated our economy, that would allow companies to plan past 3 years to build new plants, to buy new capital equipment, to hire new people. Right now American companies trying to do business in this country do not know what their tax rates are going to be after 2010. In fact, if we do nothing in Congress, they know they will experience the highest tax increase in history. Yet we are not even willing to talk about it. All of us know we need to lower our corporate tax rate to at least be comparable to Europe at 25 percent. Yet we are not doing it. So more of our capital, more of our jobs, more businesses will continue to move offshore. Sending people a few hundred dollars to pay down their credit cards is not going to help grow our economy. There are other things we know we can do. We know we can bring capital from overseas back home for investment and growth if we lower the corporate tax rate as we did a few years ago, what we call repatriating those dollars. Even temporarily lowering that rate would bring capital home and encourage growth. The one part of the stimulus package that does make sense is to allow companies to expense or to speed up depreciation of capital they buy so it will encourage them to grow and make decisions now because the people who make that equipment have jobs, and those who operate that equipment have jobs. So it would provide some stimulus. But it is most important that we have a predictable, permanent system where people can do business and be competitive around the world. It is unfortunate in all this debate that we are not even willing to talk about it. I appreciate the time to express my concerns. I am thankful everyone is concerned about the economy and those who have lost their jobs and may lose them in the future. But what we are doing as a Congress is talking about doing something that we are not really doing: we are not stimulating the economy. This is not an economic stimulus package. It is a political stimulus package that is designed to help folks in November. I know every American needs a check and probably none will turn it down. But, unfortunately, we are making false promises that will not carry into long-term economic growth. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. No, sir, I am going to make my statement. I know we are all tired and ready to go home. I do appreciate the work of my colleagues. I wish them all a very Merry Christmas and a wonderful time with their families. But this is the last bill of the year. It is not just any bill. We began the year, all of us, very hopeful. Oftentimes a change is helpful as we rethink how we do things. In fact, I began this year introducing one of Speaker Pelosi's bills that provided more transparency to earmarks that I thought was better than ours. I introduced it on the Senate side. But, unfortunately, as we have gone through the year, we haven't been able to get our work done. We like to say we are the world's greatest deliberative body. I have to ask my colleagues tonight, on the largest bill we have ever considered, the most expensive bill we have ever considered, what deliberation? We don't even know what is in this bill. We haven't had any real debate. We are going to try to cut it off in an hour or so. This is a couple of times bigger than the Bible. It is bigger than Webster's Dictionary. It has some of the most important provisions to direct our country over the next year that we could possibly consider. We don't even have a desk copy. I would like to make a few things clear about this bill. This does not include the Iraq and Afghanistan money. We voted on that separately. It is done. It is going to go back to the House. A vote against this bill is not a vote against our troops, but it is a vote against how this has been done and the mismanagement that has occurred. To bring this much spending and this many provisions, 3,400 pages plus in 24 hours, and ask us to vote on it is irresponsible. There should be no confusion tonight. We are not going to vote on the Iraq funding, which we passed. I am here to encourage my colleagues to consider for many reasons voting against this omnibus spending bill. I am afraid it is indicative of the way we have run this year, as we look at this big bill sitting in front of us. I am afraid the new majority has attempted to cater to so many special interests with so many diverse interests that we have really become dysfunctional and have not been able to get our work done. They cannot really support the funding of the troops or they will irritate the antiwar left. They cannot vote for fiscal responsibility or they will irritate the special interest lobbyists who need a lot of the special projects and earmarks in this bill. So instead, we have come up with this arcane procedural process. This is not really a bill; it is some form of message. And we are going to pass it separately so that we can have it both ways and no one can be blamed for the mismanagement. But there should be no mistake. Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, and Harry Reid is the Senate majority leader. The Democrats are in charge of Congress. This is their process. It is their bill. And I am afraid, my colleagues, it is a disgrace. This is the bill. As I have said, it might be the largest bill in the Nation's history. It is the most expensive bill in America's history-- 3,400 pages-plus; 24 hours to consider its contents. It took over 6 hours just to print this out. There is one copy in the cloakroom on both sides. We have not even read it. It contains over 9,000 earmarks. If we can see this chart over this large stack of legislation: 9,100 earmarks, plus the 2,100 that have already been passed. If you remember, a lot of the culture of corruption we talked about at the beginning of this year was attributed to the earmarks--trading earmarks for bribes and earmarks for campaign contributions. The new majority promised the American people, with my support, that we would reduce the number of earmarks significantly. One of the last acts of the Republican majority was to stop the big omnibus last year and to force a continuing resolution where the result was only 2,600 earmarks. Those who say this large number of earmarks has always been a part of the Senate do not know our history. All you have to do is go back to 1995: 1,400 earmarks. If you go back past then, there were fewer than that. This is not a constitutional function. It has not been part of the history of the Senate. This growth in earmarks is a perversion of the purpose of this Congress, where we have changed our focus from national interests, the future of this country, to parochial, special interests that we work on every year and hardly even talk about those issues that challenge our Nation--such as a Tax Code that is sending jobs overseas; entitlement programs, where we do not have a clue how we are going to pay for them; health care, when people cannot receive it in our country. We are fighting over bike paths and museums and little special projects all year long. This year, with the new majority, we are back up to the second highest level in history of the number of earmarks, special project earmarks, that we are supporting in this bill right here, and we do not even know everything that is in it as yet. It contains at least $20 billion in budget gimmicks and so-called emergency spending. I could go down the list. It would put a lot of people to sleep. There are a number of ridiculous provisions that we are just finding. The serious debate over immigration came down to at least one starting solution: that we are going to secure our borders. We voted the money to build fence and barriers on our borders. But this bill changes what we have already passed. It allows for only a single-layer fence and takes out the requirement for the location of the fence in States, that the money cannot be released until 15 new requirements authored by the Appropriations Committee are satisfied. It is just designed to delay what the American people made clear to us earlier in the year. They want us to have a country with secure borders. This bill changes that. It also provides $10 million to pay for lawyers for illegal aliens. The English requirement. The Senate passed language earlier in the year to ensure that employers are not subjected to Government-funded lawsuits if they require English in the workplace. This bill takes that protection away from employers and exposes them to lawsuits because they need English spoken in the workplace. Sanctuary cities. The prohibition against sanctuary cities was taken out. There are special earmarks for the AFL-CIO, a number of others. We could go down the list. Again, we are just starting to find out what is in the bill. I know very few Senators here tonight know what is really in it. The organizations that are watching this Congress to try to identify waste are going to be key voting this tonight. I think my colleagues know they consider that a very serious issue. The Citizens Against Government Waste are saying vote no. The Club for Growth says vote no. The American Conservative Union says vote no. The Americans for Prosperity: No. Americans for Tax Reform: No. National Taxpayers Union. We can continue to go down the list. All the organizations that downloaded this off the Web last night and began looking through it within an hour or two found things that made it unacceptable. It is an unacceptable bill, and it should not be part of the world's greatest deliberative body tonight. But I think we agreed--I think the American people asked the new majority to end business as usual. I hope we can do that tonight. I hope we can give the American taxpayers a real Christmas present and stop wasting their money, stop breaking the promises. While we are making all the new promises in here, we are not making provisions to keep the promises we make. I know most of my colleagues believe this is not the way we should be running the Senate and that they would like for there to be a better way. We do not have to vote against the troops to vote against this bill. I would encourage my Democratic colleagues, many of them who have stood with us this year on earmark reform, that is one reason alone to vote against this bill: the policy changes, the moving more money to Planned Parenthood, the compromising of our border security. The list is getting longer and longer, and we are not even a quarter of the way down the bill yet. I encourage my colleagues to join the American people and help us stop wasteful spending. This is the last bill of the year. It is the last vote. It is going to say a lot about this Congress and what we have accomplished. This is our chance to at least say: No more business as usual. We are not going to do business this way, where we pile 3,400-plus pages on a desk, in 24 hours, and ask the Senators of this country to vote for it without even knowing what is in it. It is not the way to run a Senate. It is not the way to run a country. I plead with my colleagues, let's leave this year on a positive note. Vote against this omnibus and give Americans a real Christmas present. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, hopefully, we can cut the time short. We insist on some comments about this bill because it is probably the largest bill that has ever passed in the Senate. It is sitting in front of me tonight. It amazes me we are willing to take this lightly. This is the bill we are getting ready to vote on, probably the biggest spending bill that has ever passed in the Senate. It was received yesterday. Normally it is a courtesy in the Senate that the bills we are debating are placed on every Senator's desk so that we can at least have the pretense that we have looked at them. But you will notice that this bill is not on any desk in the Chamber because there is not one single Senator here tonight who can say they have read this bill.

Mr. DeMINT. That is my preference, to make some comments.

Mr. DeMINT. Has the Senator read the bill? Have you read the bill?