Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Reserving the right to object, will the Senator modify her request to allow me 2 minutes before we go to the vote?

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I had an opportunity this morning to speak briefly about this amendment, and in the interest of time I will be brief again. This amendment is about the security of our ports. Two times within the last year this body passed a bill that would prohibit access to convicted felons of secure areas of our ports. We passed it once in the SAFE Port Act, and that amendment was diluted when it came back. Also, we will find in the 9/11 Commission bill that will come back--we had passed it and put it in as part of that bill--it has been once again diluted. This needs to be a serious consideration. We can spend billions and billions of dollars on screening and all kinds of equipment, but if one person in our ports turns away from something being shipped in and does not do the proper inspection and lets something in, we could be in a lot of trouble as a country. So this amendment simply does not allow the Secretary to use funds to eliminate any of the felonies listed in the amendment. Please keep in mind, this list of felonies is one that has been adopted by the Homeland Security agency. It is very similar to the lists we use in our airports, which have protected us for a number of years. It is very important we recognize that people who have been susceptible to criminal activity can be susceptible again. This is not that we do not want to give people a second chance, but second chances should not be at the expense of the security of this country. So this amendment would disallow the use of funds to water down and eliminate any of the felonies listed in the Department of Homeland Security's list of those who are denied access to what we call the TWIC cards, which are the transportation worker identification cards. So with that, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I know we are all tired and we have agreed to cut this short. But this 9/11 Commission bill is very important and a part of it that we have talked about tonight and actually for the last year is port security. All of us agreed once again tonight that we should not allow convicted, serious felons to have access to secure areas of our ports. Unfortunately this amendment tonight was on an appropriations bill, and it restricted the use of funds for 1 year. We have passed another time as part of the Safe Ports Act--94 to 2--to do this same thing: to take the Department of Homeland Security regulations they passed after careful study and codify it into law. But the 9/11 conference bill has come back to us and, once again, gutted that provision. The reason it has been gutted is this: Once we pass this conference report the way it is, and it allows the Secretary to waive, to change, or to leave certain felonies that are listed, then it opens the whole regulatory process to lawsuit and challenge on a continuous basis. We have voted in the open tonight to stop that from happening, to stop convicted felons from working in secure areas of our ports. My motion tonight is very simple. It is to recommit this bill to committee to restore the amendment in the exact words that we have passed on the floor and to avoid the watering down and the gutting of a very important port security measure. The Senate has voted 93 to 1 tonight. The House voted last week on the same measure 354 to 66. What the 9/11 Commission bill does is allow the Secretary to eliminate or change listed felonies, allowing TWIC cards, these secure area cards, to possibly be given to those who have been convicted of smuggling, arson, kidnapping, rape, extortion, bribery, money laundering, hostage taking, unlawful use of a firearm, drug dealing, immigration violations, assault with intent to kill, robbery, fraudulent entry to a seaport or racketeering. These are serious crimes. Although there is often talk of giving people a second chance, that second chance should not come at the expense of the security of our Nation. Mr. President, I send this motion to the desk, which they have, and ask for its consideration.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to recommit this bill. It is something that can be done quickly without delaying the final passage of this conference report, but it restores a very important provision we all voted on. I hope we can all support this motion to recommit. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I would also like to address my amendment No. 2482. This amendment would prevent the Government from shutting down when regular appropriations bills are not enacted. It would do so by automatically triggering a continuing resolution that funds agencies at current levels for up to 1 year. The amendment would begin automatic funding on the first day of a lapse in appropriations and it would end on the day the regular appropriations bill becomes law or the last day of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. This would eliminate the must-pass nature associated with regular appropriations bills which often pressures lawmakers into accepting spending bills with objectionable spending. The Democratic leader said at the beginning of the year that he would get all of the appropriations bills done before the end of the fiscal year, but there are only 2 months left and we have not completed a single bill. This means we are going to eventually be faced with having to pass a bad bill or alowing parts of the Government to shut down. I certainly don't support that and I know my colleagues do not either. This amendment will prevent that kind of train wreck from ever happening. The President supports this amendment as I believe any President would because it prevents their administration from being shut down. His fiscal year 2008 budget says: In the 22 out of the past 25 years in which Congress has not finished appropriation bills by the October 1st deadline, it has funded the Government through ``continuing resolutions'' (CRs), which provide temporary funding authority for Government activities, usually at current levels, until the final appropriations bills are signed into law. If Congress does not pass a CR or the President does not sign it, the Federal Government must shut down. Important Government functions should not be held hostage simply because of an impasse over temporary funding bills. There should be a back-up plan to avoid the threat of a Government shutdown, although the expectation is that appropriations bills still would pass on time as the law requires. Under the Administration's proposal, if an appropriations bill is not signed by October 1 of the new fiscal year, funding would be automatically provided at the lower of the President's Budget or the prior year's level. My amendment would create a safety net that would avoid crisis situations that often pressure lawmakers into supporting spending bills they would not otherwise support. This is a commonsense proposal and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I am offering a very simple amendment today which I hope will get overwhelming bipartisan support. My amendment simply instructs the Government Accountability Office to complete a study regarding the employment of postsecondary education graduates. As my colleagues know, we live in a global economy that is creating intense competitive pressure on our workforce. It is more important than ever that our Nation's students, employers, and policymakers have access to good information about the effectiveness of our higher education system as it relates to employment and job placement. One of my favorite books, one I know many of my colleagues have read, is ``The World Is Flat'' by Thomas Friedman. According to Friedman, the convergence of advanced technology, the removal of economic and political obstructions, and the rapid introduction of millions of young professionals into the global economy have dramatically flattened the economic playing field. Friedman believes these changes are creating opportunities for people to tap their full potential, boost their prosperity, and live out their dreams. He believes that Americans with the knowledge, skills, and adaptability to compete in this newly flattened world can look forward to a bright future, while those without these skills will be left behind. If our higher education system is going to equip our students with the skills they need to compete, we need to have good information on graduate job performance so other students can pick the best schools and the most promising degrees. My amendment would instruct the GAO to study the feasibility of collecting information on the employment of students who complete a postsecondary education program. It would also instruct the GAO to provide Congress with recommendations on several important questions, including whether the current State programs that bring education and employment functions together can be replicated in other States; whether there is a value to collecting additional information about the employment of postsecondary graduates; the most promising ways of obtaining and disseminating this information; if a Web site is used, whether the Web site should be run by a Government agency or contracted out to an independent organization; whether a voluntary information system would work, both from the graduates' and employers' perspective; how the information could be used in practical ways; whether the requests for such information are duplicative of information already being collected or whether the National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey could be amended to collect such information. These are all important issues we must consider as we seek to expand information on the employment experiences of our Nation's college graduates. Before I conclude, I wish to explain how powerful this information could be in making our Nation more competitive in the global economy. If students could see how graduates from specific schools and with specific degrees have performed in the workplace, they could make better choices of alternative colleges and universities. If employers could see how graduates of specific schools and with specific degrees performed, they could make better hiring decisions. If colleges and universities could see exactly how they are performing in equipping students for the workplace, they could make adjustments to better compete with other higher education institutions. Finally, if lawmakers could see exactly how our education system is performing, it would help us all make better policy decisions in this important area. I thank the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, for his interest in this issue and for the assistance he and his staff have provided me. I look forward to working with him and the Senator from Massachusetts to find ways to increase the availability of information we have that connects higher education and employment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DeMINT. Yes. A voice vote will be fine.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. How many is that?

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Chair for confirming that the rules require 60 votes on this matter, and I understand that controversial matters require 60 votes in the Senate. I move to waive the applicable provisions of the Congressional Budget Act with respect to my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable portion of the Budget Act, and ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 2362.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for her comments as well. We all know adoption is an important issue. I wish the situation were such in the Senate that we could bring this up at a different time. As we look forward to between now and the rest of this year and, frankly, through 2008, it is going to be very difficult to get this amendment up. We know the process of getting back to the Finance Committee and then back as part of this bill will not bring this bill down. I encourage my colleagues to look at the greater good, the issue here. There is no reason we can't create some predictability with the adoption tax credit so we can continue to grow the number of adoptions in this country. For that reason, I raise a point of order that the pending second- degree amendment is not germane.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, as our Nation's college graduates head out into the workforce, many of them will be faced with the question of whether they should join a union. Some will get to make that decision by secret ballot, while others will not. My amendment is very simple. It guarantees that every American worker will get a secret ballot election when deciding whether to join a union. This is especially important because there are some in this body who want to take this right away and conduct union elections by card check. This approach would open workers to harassment, intimidation, and other forms of union pressure. We need safeguards to allow employees to freely choose without intimidation and coercion from union bosses. Recent polls have shown that 87 percent of American people agree that every worker should have the right to a secret ballot election. I urge my colleagues to protect workers' rights and vote for this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2362.

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I may have an amendment that we can actually all agree on tonight. As many of my colleagues know, the infant adoption tax credit is a powerful tool that is making it possible for thousands of American families to open their homes to children in need. I know everyone here agrees with me that there is nothing more important than for a child to have someone to call a mom and a dad. There is nothing more important to the success of education than a good family. Unfortunately, the current adoption tax credit is scheduled to sunset in 2010. If we don't make this tax relief permanent, adoption taxes will go up and many American families will not be able to afford the expenses associated with adoption, which are now between $10,000 and $25,000. I wish to thank all the people in this Chamber who have done so much for the cause of adoption, especially Senator Landrieu, Senator Craig, and Senator Bunning, whose amendment we are actually bringing up today.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry, please: Will the Chair confirm how many votes are required on a motion to waive the Budget Act?

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, obviously, I am very disappointed that we continue to obstruct ethics reform and earmark reform. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I would like to speak now about the ongoing efforts in the Senate to block the earmark transparency rules. It has now been 180 days since they were unanimously adopted by the Senate. Yet they still have not been formally enacted. Even worse, the majority wants to take them behind closed doors, where a conference committee can kill them in secret. They tried to kill these reforms on the Senate floor but failed. Now they are falling back to their plan B, which is to gut them in conference. That is not how we should write a bill about openness, honesty, and transparency. I hope my friends on the other side will change their minds. These are Senate rules I am talking about, and there is no reason why we need to negotiate with the House. The House already has their earmark transparency rules. My friends on the other side should stop blocking earmark reform and stop trying to change these rules in secret so we can move on. Americans have seen the ethical problems associated with earmarks. They have watched what happened to Duke Cunningham, and they have seen a number of Members of Congress forfeit their seats on appropriations committees due to conflicts of interest. Americans understand that lobbying and ethics reform will not be complete--in fact, it would be meaningless--if we don't do something to shine the light on earmarks. Let me repeat this because I think it is very important. Americans do understand that ethics reform is not complete without meaningful earmark reform. Many of the reforms in the ethics bill address what people outside of Congress can do, but earmark reform addresses what we here in Congress can do. That is the difference. Americans want, more than anything else, Congress to be restrained and open about what we do. They want us to reform the way we spend their money and shut down the secret congressional favor factory. Nothing would do more to restore America's faith in their Government than enacting reforms that ensure their elected officials are not going to use their ability to spend Federal dollars to enrich their friends and supporters. Mr. President, I wish to draw the Senate's attention to an article that ran this morning in The Hill newspaper about earmarks--earmarks that have not been properly disclosed. The majority likes to say they are complying with the rules, but that doesn't appear to be the case. This story says: As a proposal to require full disclosure of all Senate earmarks languishes, Senators have not claimed responsibility for at least $7.5 billion worth of projects approved by the Appropriations Committee, according to an analysis by a budget watchdog group. Obviously, the piecemeal approach being used by the Democrats is not working. We cannot allow appropriators and other committees to police themselves. They are not doing it now, and they never will. We need a single enforcement rule for the whole Senate that doesn't keep loopholes for secret earmarking. Let me repeat: $7.5 billion in earmarks already this year are undisclosed. This is business as usual in the Senate. I wish to point out that the Defense authorization bill we are debating now violates the rules. It discloses the earmark sponsors, but the committee failed to post on the Internet the letters from these sponsors certifying that they do not have a financial interest in the earmark they have requested. Before I conclude, I want to update the Senate on some progress we are making on earmark reform. First, we have added several cosponsors to S. Res. 123, which is the earmark disclosure rule. They are Senators Ensign, Enzi, Martinez, Coburn, McCaskill, and Cornyn. I thank them for their support. Some of these Senators request earmarks, while others do not. But they all support earmark disclosure, and they all support this rule as it is written right now. We have also added a couple cosponsors to S. Res. 260, the rule that would stop the adding of earmarks in secret conference committees. They are Senators Allard and Cornyn. I thank them for their support. A select few Members of Congress and their staffs should not be adding hidden earmarks to bills in the middle of the night when no one has the opportunity to review them and debate their merits. That is very bad practice, and it must end. There was also an important editorial last Tuesday in the Roll Call newspaper that supports our efforts to protect earmark reform. I will read a couple of excerpts: Senate Democratic leaders are resisting [Senator DeMint's] move and are insisting on going to conference on the ethics bill, although they have yet to explain why already agreed- upon earmark rules can't be adopted immediately. We don't oppose earmarks in principle. . . . But as events last year amply demonstrated, earmarks can be a source of rotten corruption. Full disclosure is crucial, and the Senate ought to institute it forthwith. We think that on the merits Senate leaders should accede to DeMint so disclosure of spending requests is not delayed until President Bush signs an ethics reform measure that still has not even gone to a House-Senate conference. Mr. President, the blogging community is watching what we are doing here. Countless bloggers, including The Corner on National Review Online, Instapundit.com, MichelleMalkin.com, the Sunlight Foundation, Porkbusters.com, RedState.com, and many others, have weighed in on the need for the Senate to implement these earmark transparency rules now. I thank them for paying attention to this debate and working to hold us all accountable. Finally, we have received letters of support from several important taxpayer watchdog groups, including Americans for Prosperity and Citizens Against Government Waste. These groups know how important earmark reform is, and they believe it should be implemented immediately. These rules need to be adopted immediately. They should not be allowed to go to conference with the House where they can be changed at will. They need to be enacted now before a single appropriations bill comes to the Senate floor. It has been 180 days since they were unanimously adopted by the Senate. I have asked consent to enact these rules four times, but the other side has blocked them each and every time. Today needs to be the day that this obstruction stops. Today needs to be the day we end the earmark business as usual in the Senate.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. On behalf of the Senator from Oklahoma, I object.