Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I am asking for votes. Let's not say later on that we are trying to stop votes. I also ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of the bill, the pending amendment be temporarily set aside and that all the filed amendments be called up en bloc and that the Senate then return to the consideration of the Reid amendment.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, as has been noted, I control 10 minutes of the last 15 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Vitter be allowed to control the time of the remaining 5 minutes on the Republican side.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. There are not many rights. I object.

Mr. DeMINT. I yield the final 2 minutes to Senator Sessions.

Mr. DeMINT. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DeMINT. Parliamentary inquiry: Do I not have the right to reserve the right to object? How many rules are we going to change?

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I object, Mr. President. We just received the substitute.

Mr. DeMINT. I object.

Mr DeMINT

Mr DeMINT. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. DeMINT

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes about a couple of bills that are going to be offered this week. There are two bills that probably make a good point about where we are as a Senate, and particularly I think where my Democratic colleagues are. We have one bill that takes away almost a sacred right of American workers, and then we have a second bill that will be offered tomorrow that gives new rights and benefits to non-Americans who came to this country illegally. The first bill has been given lots of names today. I think it is S. 1041. Some call it card check. I call it the ``Worker Intimidation Act.'' One of the most central parts of our whole free society, whether you are talking about local school board elections, elections to Congress, or where workers decide whether to become part of a union, has always been the secret ballot. The very fact that this Congress is considering eliminating that secret ballot should give all of us pause as to where we are as a country. The very thought that we would call this in some way worker protection is amazing, and that we are saying this bill will somehow help unemployment in this country, when we know it would not. Unions have been declining for years in the private sector because, in an age of lean manufacturing, continuous quality improvement, and just-in-time inventories, it is becoming increasingly impossible to have a third- party decisionmaker involved in that whole process. I spent years consulting for continuous quality improvement, and it is hard enough, with your customers and workers and your company, to figure out how to make that dynamic work profitably. But when a third party is involved with collective bargaining in decisions about how your operations work it is almost impossible to make a company competitive in this global economy. We have seen in our own country the companies and industries we are proudest of--our auto industries, and we have seen it in the airlines where, basically, unionization and the union contracts have brought these companies either to bankruptcy or close to it. There is a reason that unions are not prospering in the private sector. The only place they are prospering is in government. As the government grows, it doesn't have any competition. The inefficiencies are very well known, the incompetencies. Third-party decisionmaking does nothing but make us more and more inefficient and inept as a government, which we see in everything from Katrina to almost everything we do. As we look at this other bill that we are going to bring up, where we add 128,000 new border agents who will be unionized and part of collective bargaining, we will continue to see dysfunction at the border. We are not helping workers when we take away their right to vote as to whether to become a union. We have heard a lot of explanations of what this bill does, but it is really a desperate attempt to try to salvage unionization and union bosses in this country. It is just not right to tell a worker they can be intimidated to join a union, and that is basically what it comes down to. So I am here to encourage all my colleagues to vote this bill down tomorrow. I am very surprised the majority leader is even willing to bring it up. That brings me to the second bill where, on one hand, we are willing to take rights away from American workers--and I think America is increasingly concerned as it sees our laws and justice system seeming to work against them. It seems to work for the criminals rather than the victims. It tends to take rights away from Americans and give them away and send our money overseas. I hear that from everyone I talk to. But one of the most emotionally charged issues of our day is this immigration bill, which many call the amnesty bill, that will also be brought up. We all know there are millions of people all over the world who have been waiting years to come to this country and work legally, to be a part of this country and to share our values. At the same time, we also know for many years, millions and millions of folks have snuck in illegally and continue to be here to this day, and the bill we are talking about this week is going to reward those who came here illegally while basically putting at a disadvantage those who have been trying to work the system legally for years. All of us in Congress have tried to help people for many years, whether it is to get their passports or green cards, to try to get their citizenship, or to help people who want to get visas to come here because industry needs them to come, and it is difficult working within this legal system. We make it so hard for people to come here legally, and we have made it easy for them to come here illegally. We have talked about--during the debate today and we will a little more tomorrow--how back in 1986 we saw we had a problem with 2 or 3 million illegals who were here, and we passed a bill that was going to secure our borders and get a verifiable worker ID system, and we were going to grant amnesty to those who were here but then no more. We were just going to do it that once. But what we did was send a signal all over the world that if you can get here illegally, we are eventually going to make you legal. And so here we are again, except this time with 12 to 20 million illegals who have come to this country, breaking our laws as their first act of coming across our border. This bill--and I know there are a lot of good intentions behind it-- is holding hostage the reforms we need to secure our borders, to develop a workable immigration system. We are holding that part hostage, which we really need, to this whole idea of amnesty. They are telling those of us who want to make a system that works to get in the guest workers our farmers and hotel operators need, to get in the skilled workers in our high-tech industries, that in order to do that and to develop an enforcement system to make that work, we have to give 12 million people who came here illegally permanent residency and a pathway to citizenship. I don't buy that grand bargain, and I don't think America has either. In fact, I know America hasn't. Our offices have had thousands of calls from all over the country from people who are desperate and wondering why we are not willing to enforce our laws. And what would make them think we are going to enforce this new law if we have not even shown an inclination to enforce the laws that have already been passed--not just in 1986 but last year we passed a stronger border enforcement bill than is in this current amnesty bill. Yet we have done very little to move ahead with it. We are holding it hostage to this brandnew amnesty program. It is not fair to Americans because the American worker will have to pay for this in their taxes. We know these illegals who are here are going to continue to use government services: health care, and emergency rooms, free education for children, day care, free lunch programs, housing programs, and eventually Social Security and Medicare. We don't even know how we are going to keep these promises to our own citizens. Yet we are being asked to give permanent legal residency and a path to citizenship to those who came here illegally. Tomorrow, we are going to bring up two bills. One is to take away a right of American workers to a secret ballot when it comes to whether they are unionized. The second is to give new benefits and rights to millions of people who disobeyed our laws, who came to this country illegally, and who jumped in front of those trying to obey our laws. Both bills should be voted down. I encourage my colleagues to respond to the American people on this one, to show them we can listen, that we are not as callous as we appear. Their concerns go far beyond just this immigration bill or this secret ballot bill. They believe they are being sold out. They think they are being betrayed. They think we are just moving from whim to whim in the Senate, and we are refusing to go by the rule of law and enforce the laws we have actually passed in Congress. They are concerned at a level and alienated at a level I have never seen. At a time when the trust and favorable ratings of Congress and the President are at historical lows, we have chosen to stick down the throats of the American people legislation they do not trust and they do not want. I appeal to the President, I appeal to the leaders on the Democratic side and the Republican side to take this a step at a time and allow us to earn the trust of the American people, to show them that we will enforce our laws and secure our borders, to show them we will follow through on a worker ID program that is verifiable so we will know who is legal and who is not. And if we develop a legal immigration system that works, then the decisions about what to do with the illegals who are here will become easy because we will have a workable system we can work with. To vote for the bill, the motion to proceed tomorrow on this immigration bill, is a vote to pass it. Every Senator here knows, regardless of how this bill ends up, that there are 51 Senators who will vote for it. So moving this bill along tomorrow by voting for this cloture motion to proceed is voting to pass this bill. I have heard some say: I am going to vote for the motion to proceed, but I will vote against the bill. America will see through it because they are looking at this one. We did the same thing last week on the Energy bill, where some folks said: Well, I am going to vote for the cloture motion, but I am going to vote against the bill, when they knew if they helped pass cloture they were passing the bill. The same is happening with this immigration bill. There are some who think the American people will not notice they pushed this bill all the way to final vote. Even if they vote against the final bill, they voted to pass it. Tomorrow will reveal who wants to listen, who is going to listen to the American people, by voting against this cloture motion to proceed. This bill has come up and been voted down three times already in the last month. It is unprecedented in Congress after a failure of that magnitude to bring a bill back in a couple of weeks and try to stuff it down the American people's throats again. This is the wrong bill. It is a flawed bill. It is the wrong time to ask the American people to trust Congress when we have not proven to be trustworthy in the past. We need to take this a step at a time, and we need to stop this cloture motion tomorrow. I encourage my colleagues to listen to the American people, to vote against the elimination of a secret ballot for unions, and to vote against the amnesty bill that will follow it tomorrow. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I would just like a few minutes to look at the language.

Mr. DeMINT. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I move to waive the budget point of order.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, it has been brought to my attention that the majority will seek to defeat my amendment by raising another point of order against it. This demonstrates exactly how much the Democrats dislike this amendment. It proves that they have additional plans in the works to raise gasoline prices on the American people. Why else would they be fighting it so hard? I also believe this effort to deny the Senate a clean up-or-down vote on this amendment shows that some in this body are more interested in defending the jurisdiction and rights of a Senate committee than they are in defending American consumers. If the other side raises a point of order against my amendment, I encourage my colleagues to ask themselves which is more important: protecting Americans from high gas prices or protecting the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee? I urge my colleagues to vote to waive the Budget Act. If the other side tries to kill my amendment and stick it to the American people at the pump, I encourage Members to vote against such an effort. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the Senator's remarks. I think the remarks were very instructive. It is clear that many of things we do in the Senate actually do result in increased gas prices. Most of the discussion and a lot of the initiative and motivation of the bill we are working on is to lower gas prices. The fact is, in the past, though, we have not been honest and transparent with the American people. Many times we are talking about our good intentions, things we are going to do here, and we do not expose the fact that what we are doing is going to increase the cost of gasoline. I think that is a fair part of the debate. If we want to increase our national reserves of oil, then it is fair in that debate to make it clear to the American people that if we do it, it may increase the cost of gasoline to them at home, so all of us who are considering the issue can balance it. If some aid program to Nigeria is going to increase the cost of gasoline here at home, the American people should know that, so we cannot claim to be doing something for people without them realizing it is costing them more and more money. I understand the objections to procedural hurdles here. Actually, that is the way the Senate was designed so that we do not do things in a knee-jerk fashion, without openness and debate, so we actually do figure out the consequences of what we do in advance of passing legislation. We have not done that in the past. Many of our rules have created different boutique, different fuel requirements in many States, a lot of environmental concerns--a lot of things that are good actually increased the cost of gasoline a significant degree. It is important that we include that in our debate. While we may be resistant to procedural hurdles, much of the bill we are debating creates multiple procedural hurdles to increase new gas supplies, oil, natural gas. It creates new mandates, new taxes. We create a lot of hurdles for the energy business to create more supply so we can lower the price of gasoline. This amendment exposes us for what we are and what we are doing. If we are going to propose things in the Senate related to energy, the Congressional Budget Office, as my amendment says, in consultation with the Energy Information Administration and other appropriate Government agencies, can help make a determination if what we are doing is going to raise the price of gasoline. That is a fair part of an honest debate. To snuff this out and to come down to the Senate floor and make great claims about what we are going to do to help the American people while all the time hiding from them that we are the ones raising their gas prices--it is not big oil, it is not necessarily even OPEC, it is us. We add lots of costs to gasoline every time we pass an energy bill. This Energy bill is no exception. While my amendment doesn't affect this bill, it does create a point of order in the future. You can call this a hurdle, but if 60 people in the Senate cannot decide that it is more important to increase the size of our national reserve, even though it might increase the cost of gasoline, if 60 of us are not for that, then perhaps we should hesitate before we increase the cost of gasoline again to the consumers. This is one of the rare simple bills that come to the Senate. It is just a couple of pages. All it does is say that when we introduce a bill that increases the cost of gasoline for American consumers, we have to get 60 votes instead of 51 to pass it. It is a reasonable proposal. If we are willing to come here and talk every day about what we are doing to help the consumer and at the same time we want to hide from them that the things we are doing are actually increasing the cost of gasoline, then shame on us. This amendment is simple. It is about transparency, openness, and honesty to the people. That is exactly what they deserve. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to speak about my amendment which the Senate will be voting on a few minutes after 10 this morning. This amendment would create a 60-vote point of order against bills or amendments in the future that would raise the price of gasoline. This amendment is very straightforward. It would require the Congressional Budget Office to score legislation to determine if it would increase the cost of gasoline. If the legislation would increase the cost of gasoline, a 60-vote point of order would lie against the bill. This applies the same principle we use in the Congressional budget process to our energy policy. The traveling public is coping with the high price of gasoline every day. While there are many factors out of our control forcing up the price of gas, we can control what we do here in the Senate. For all the time that has been spent over the last few weeks railing against big oil or the high cost of gasoline, little time has been spent to examine one of the leading causes of high prices of gasoline, which is the Congress. Too often the idea of a rational energy policy here in Congress is to create burdensome regulations, onerous mandates, and higher taxes, all of which directly translate into higher prices at the pump for American families. My amendment proposes to hold Congress in check by instituting a safeguard that encourages the Senate to take a ``do not harm'' approach when considering legislation affecting gas prices. My amendment, again, is very straightforward and very simple. If the Senate wants to pass legislation that will make it more expensive for American families to fill up their tank, we will be required to get 60 votes instead of 51 to pass the legislation. While this amendment is relatively simple, it is also vitally important, because, while many of the Democrats in this body like to tell the American people they are working to ``stick it to big oil'' and lower the price of gasoline, their legislative record shows something quite different. The current bill is a perfect example. According to a study completed this week by the Heritage Foundation, the Energy bill we are currently debating could result in significantly higher prices for gasoline to consumers. A review of the legislation, including the new amendment dealing with tax changes, revealed the bill could increase the price of regular unleaded gasoline from $3.15 per gallon, which is the May average right now, to $6.40 a gallon by 2016. That is an increase of over 100 percent. The point of order my amendment proposes could not be used against this bill because it cannot take effect until the bill is enacted. But my amendment could be used to stop similar legislation in the future. If this Congress is willing to consider legislation that would raise the price of gasoline by over 100 percent, as this bill may do, we need to put some commonsense safeguards in place. I know some of my colleagues may in the future support policies that would raise the price of gasoline. That would cause the point of order I am proposing to lie against the bill. But I would encourage even those to support this amendment. If their policy goal is so important, then we can overcome the point of order and we can get 60 votes to pass their legislation. We should adopt this commonsense proposal that ensures that at the very least the Senate is less likely to increase the cost of gasoline. After all the concerns we have heard from my Democratic colleagues about the price of gasoline, this seems the least we can do. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes and that it count against my allocated 15 minutes on my amendment and that it appear in a separate place in the Record.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about some real heroes and their real sacrifices this week. Late Monday, a horrible blaze in Charleston, SC, claimed the lives of nine local firefighters. Details are still being investigated, but what we know now is these heroes died trying to save lives. We fear most were caught under a collapsed roof in the quick-spreading flames. My heart goes out to the families, friends, and coworkers of these firefighters. These were courageous public servants. We will miss them dearly. They paid the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. In the aftermath, our State's low country must deal with the shock and sorrow of these losses. Our job as citizens is to never forget what they did and to try to turn the shock and sorrow into solemn remembrance and a commitment to help their families. I also want to mention two other Charleston leaders who are struggling with this situation on the ground: Fire Chief Rusty Thomas, and city of Charleston Mayor Joe Riley. According to news reports, Chief Thomas stayed up Monday night meeting with many of the families of the victims. He was on the scene all night. The police chief, Greg Mullen, said: Chief Thomas is a true leader. I could not agree more. Mayor Riley is no stranger when it comes to dealing with disaster. His leadership during the trying aftermath of Hurricane Hugo was instrumental in our quick recovery. His leadership will greatly aid the Charleston Fire Department now as they attempt to move forward. Firefighters represent the best our country has to offer. I will never forget these hometown heroes and the tremendous sacrifice they made this week. For the families of those who lost loved ones in Charleston, our words are feeble comfort for them, but we will always honor the memory and sacrifice of these heroic public servants of South Carolina. For the families and friends of firefighters who remain on the job today, we pray for them as the Psalmist did, that God would be their ``refuge and strength, a very present help in time of trouble.''

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 1546. It is pending.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, what is the pending business?

Mr. DeMINT. I understand the amendment is pending. Madam President, my amendment will make it harder for this body to enact legislation that increases the price of gasoline. That may sound unneeded in a debate where the whole purpose is to supposedly relax the price of gasoline in this country, lower the price for our consumers. The whole bill is supposedly aimed at providing stable and affordable energy, including gasoline for all American citizens; however, I am disappointed that this bill actually does nothing to reduce prices and may very well show that Congress will propose policies that would raise the prices of gasoline in the future. Specifically, there is nothing in the bill to ensure Congress will not enact legislation that actually increases the cost of gasoline. At the very least, this Senate should take a ``do no harm'' approach to legislating and enact safeguards to ensure that we do not increase the cost of gasoline for American consumers. My amendment will do just that. It is very straightforward. It would require that the Congressional Budget Office evaluate legislation and determine whether it would increase the cost of gasoline. If the legislation does increase the cost of gasoline, a 60-vote point of order would lie against the bill. This applies the same principles we use in the congressional budget process to energy policy. The traveling public is coping with high prices of gasoline every day, and while there are many factors out of our control that are forcing up the cost of gasoline, we can control what we do in the Senate. I know some of my colleagues may support policies that would raise the price of gasoline and, consequently, raise the point of order that I am proposing, but I encourage them to amend this bill anyway. If the policy they are proposing is important enough, then this body will come together with more than 60 votes to pass their bill. We can adopt this commonsense proposal which ensures that at the very least, the Senate is less likely to increase the cost of gasoline as we seek to improve the Nation's energy policy. I thank the Chair for this time. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.