Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. There is obviously a lot of research that refutes that. The Heritage Foundation has come out with quite an extensive study that suggests the low-wage workers, undereducated immigrants in this country today, cost an average of $19,000 a year more in taxes than they pay. This group, as a whole, over the next three decades will cost $2.4 trillion to the American taxpayer. So there is a lot of research that suggests that undereducated, low- skilled workers are going to be a net loss to the American taxpayer.

Mr. DeMINT. Certainly, the Senator will agree it should not be the obligation of the American taxpayer to subsidize low-wage workers for employers. Frankly, I believe if we ask these immigrants to pay their fair share, employers are more likely to hire American workers in the first place rather than lower wage workers who are actually being subsidized by the taxpayer. This health plan is one idea to ask these immigrants and their employers to carry the fair load and not to dump the cost of health care on other workers in this country.

Mr. DeMINT. I think the Senator obviously knows--and the bill language suggests--this is a small token of what the real costs are, not only for health care but education, daycare, and other services that are often used by these immigrants. Again, to ask these immigrants or their employers if they would like to assist in paying $100 or a little more a month to keep them from becoming a burden to the taxpayers is a small thing to ask for someone who is taking advantage of the opportunities in this country.

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DeMINT

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of the Vitter amendment No. 1157, which strikes title VI of the bill, the title that authorizes Z visas for illegal immigrants. Z visas are amnesty, pure and simple. They allow illegal immigrants to stay here permanently without ever returning home to their countries. This is the provision that has so many Americans upset. By removing Z visas from the bill, illegal immigrants will be able to go home and get right with the law. Once they have returned, they can apply for legal entry, just like everyone else, but they would not be allowed to violate our laws. I know many will say this amendment will be too disruptive to the illegal workers who would ultimately be forced to return to their home countries, but I disagree. Last year, 51 million people traveled to and from the United States from abroad, and 13 million of these travelers were from Mexico alone. People are very mobile, and moving this number of people around is relatively easy today. In fact, this bill acknowledges this very point by requiring them to go home to apply for citizenship. I have also heard some say the opposition to amnesty is being driven by an anti-immigrant bias. This is also untrue. Americans are extremely pro-immigrant, but they are upset that their Government has lied to them for 20 years on this issue, and they have lost confidence in our ability to control our borders. Let me be clear: I am pro-immigrant. I believe in legal immigration. I want people to come here, respect our laws, embrace our values, and become American citizens, but we must reject amnesty if we ever expect that to happen. That is why eliminating the amnesty provision in this bill is the most compassionate and pro-immigrant thing we can do. By striking the Z visas from this bill, this amendment will allow us to uphold the rule of law, create fairness for millions of people who want to come here legally, and allow us to focus on securing our borders. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT

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

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, my amendment calls for the Food and Drug Administration to conduct an assessment of the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, which we refer to as REMS, for Mifeprex, commonly known as RU-486, within 7 months of the effective date of this legislation. According to the legislation before us, any drug that is currently on the market with restrictions on its distribution or use, which includes RU-486, would be required to have a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy. This means that RU-486 would be subject to periodic assessment of how well the risk management plan, including its restrictions, is working. Unfortunately, the bill does not establish a deadline for the risk evaluation for RU-486. The current RU-486 abortion regimen was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in September of 2000. Since that time, the regimen has been linked to the deaths of seven women, including three Americans. The public has learned since November of 2004, through the release of documents by the FDA through a Freedom of Information Act request, that over 1,000 additional women have experienced adverse effects from the RU-486 regimen, including 9 life-threatening incidences, 232 hospitalizations, 116 blood transfusions, and 88 cases of infection. It should be noted this dangerous drug is attacking young, healthy women. I also want to point out the approval process for RU-486 was highly irregular in the first place. The drug regimen was approved under FDA subpart H, which is a regulation that applies to certain new drugs used for treating serious or life-threatening illnesses. While certain conditions may arise during pregnancy that are dangerous, pregnancy itself is hardly a serious or life-threatening illness. The RU-486 regimen actually requires the use of two drugs: RU-486, which kills the child, and misoprostol, which causes the uterus to expel the dead baby. G.D. Searle, the manufacturer of misoprostol, never sought to have its drug approved by the FDA for abortions. Nevertheless, the FDA, in what appears to be an unprecedented decision, mandated that misoprostol be used for unapproved ``off-label'' use in an abortion regimen along with RU-486. Finally, the FDA approved the RU-486 regimen based on data submitted from clinical trials in which there was no control group comparison. This directly violates Federal law and appears to be unprecedented as well. In my opinion, the FDA has not done enough to curb the use of this deadly drug, and for far too long the FDA has put politics ahead of science and ahead of women's health. When the Clinton administration expedited the approval process for RU-486 in the final days of its tenure, many medical professionals expressed serious concerns about the FDA's rush to bring RU-486 to market. Since then, the statistics have proven these concerns to be well-founded. The legislation we are considering today has everything to do with drug safety. Yet we have a drug on the market that has killed several women and injured many others. My amendment simply sets a 7-month deadline for the FDA to assess the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy for RU-486. Given all the adverse events associated with this drug, this is the least we can do. This is not an abortion issue, it is a women's health issue. Even those who support abortion agree there are serious problems with this drug. Let me read several quotes from abortion supporters which were part of a New York Times story that ran last year: ``None of these women should be dying; it's shocking,'' said Dr. Peter Bours, an abortion provider in Portland, OR, who is rethinking whether to offer pill-based or medical abortions. Dr. Warren Hern, an abortion provider in Denver, said the latest reports demonstrated that abortions by RU-486, or Mifeprex, were far riskier than the surgical ones. ``I think surgery should be the procedure of choice,'' Dr. Hern said. ``Pills,'' he said, ``are a lousy way to perform an abortion.'' I quote again from another source: ``The complications associated with RU-486 far exceed the complications of surgical abortion,'' said Dr. Damon Stutes. He is an abortion provider in Reno, NV. He refuses to offer pill-based abortions. Dr. Stutes, whose clinic has been bombed, said he was uneasy about agreeing with abortion proponents on anything. But the truth is the truth, he said. Another quote: One needs to tell patients that the medical procedure, even though it seems more natural, may be more likely to result in death. That is Dr. Phillip G. Stubblefield, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University. It is clear that even the supporters of abortion believe this drug is dangerous. It also appears that even the leader of the abortion industry--Planned Parenthood--supports actions by the FDA to further examine the safety of the drug. Dr. Vanessa Cullins, vice president for Medical Affairs at Planned Parenthood, told the San Francisco Chronicle: We are glad there will be continuing investigations by the FDA. We will work with the CDC, the FDA, and academicians to figure this out. The FDA needs to quickly complete its risk evaluation on RU-486. That is what my amendment guarantees. I urge my colleagues to support it. I understand that Senator Kennedy will accept a voice vote on this. I look forward to supporting it, along with all of my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, again, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 930 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I will yield to the chairman for a UC request before I bring up my amendment.

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for all his work on this bill. The question is, after we have gone through these many months of work on this bill to make America more competitive and we have directed funds to the Federal agencies that we think are most appropriate and would be most helpful in raising the quality and skill level of our labor force, do we want it to happen? Do we want this authorization bill to be implemented as we have written it? As the sponsors have been very careful to point out, this is an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill. What my amendment does is ensure that this bill is carried out the way it is authorized and that the appropriators do not take money for the National Science Foundation and say: I want some to go to my State or to this university, and we spread it out instead of using the merit-based peer review process. We change a bill that has a lot of thought and bipartisan support, and we basically turn it over to the appropriators to change. If Members want this bill implemented the way it is written, please support the amendment.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, my amendment provides what we call an earmark shield for the funds authorized in this bill, the America COMPETES Act, S. 761. Specifically, it establishes a 60-vote point of order against appropriations bills that contain congressional earmarks for the funds authorized in this bill. Let me be very clear. This does not apply to all appropriations bills or to all appropriations earmarks. It simply applies to those bills that contain appropriations earmarks for the programs authorized in the bill that we are considering today, the America COMPETES Act. What we are trying to avoid is setting up a new fund for new earmarks, so we are setting this bill aside and protecting it from earmarks. If an appropriations bill comes to the floor for funding of these programs but without earmarks, no point of order would lie against the bill. In a similar way, if an appropriations bill comes to the floor with earmarks for other programs outside of the programs funded through the America COMPETES Act, then no point of order would lie against that bill either. My amendment only creates an earmark shield for the program we are funding today. The goal of this amendment is to ensure the funds authorized in this bill are allocated according to a competitive or merit-based process. As my colleagues know, congressional earmarks circumvent the normal competitive or merit-based process, and award funds based on politics. This bill is focused on competition. Earmarking perverts the competitive process and substitutes the judgment of lawmakers and their staff for professional scientists and engineers who truly recognize a competitive proposal that merits funding. Congress has been able to keep earmarks out of the National Science Foundation and it has made that foundation one of the most successful Federal science agencies. The bill recognizes and affirms what is already explicitly in the bill. Let me read a section from the America COMPETES Act. My amendment is consistent with the stated intent of the bill, which says on page 183 that nothing in divisions A or D shall be interpreted to require the National Science Foundation to ``alter or modify its merit-based system or peer review process.'' Many of America's leading institutions oppose earmarks for research because they understand earmarks siphon funds away from the research programs their talented researchers could compete for. Several universities have official policies in place opposing congressional earmarks. Let me read a few of their policies. I will start with the University of Michigan and I will quote from their policy statement. The University of Michigan supports competitive peer review as the primary and best mechanism to allocate Federal research funds. Consequently, it is the policy of the university not to seek or accept government earmarks in support of faculty research. Here is a quote from Yale: Yale University does not seek appropriations for individual research projects that would circumvent existing merit-based procedures of Federal agencies for selecting projects for funding. The university has long held that evaluation of proposed projects on the basis of merit as judged by peer review is the best method of identifying the most promising research or scholarly projects. And a quote from MIT's policy: MIT has a long-standing policy that prohibits the knowing acceptance of grants and contracts funded via Congressional action. Such awards are known as ``earmarks,'' and funding is not generally the result of peer review. Earmarked funds are often a way to secure funds for new buildings, and for major equipment needed for cutting edge research, but institutionally MIT avoids seeking or accepting earmarked funds. It seems the whole country is starting to realize that the earmarking process we have adopted in this Congress is wasteful and actually subverts the goals we set for many of these bills. It is clear we do not need to earmark funds in order for our funding programs to be effective. My amendment simply creates an earmark shield for funds authorized in this bill to ensure they are allocated in the most competitive way. It is important to recognize that a number of Members of this Senate from many different committees have placed the authorization of this money in very specific categories that we need to protect and not subvert. It is time for the Senate to begin taking steps to discourage the use of earmarks when appropriating funds for important programs and we need to make sure this bill is not a new slush fund for Congress. My amendment will not only preserve the integrity of the competitive allocation process, but it will also make America more competitive by making these programs more effective. I thank the Senator for his courtesy in allowing me to bring up this bill. I understand we will be voting on it as part of a number of bills after the lunch hour. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I have explained what this amendment does. It is very simple. In addition to a study, if we are commissioning a study and paying for it, to find out what obstacles we have to innovation, the Tax Code is certainly something that is cited often by folks who invest and do the research and development, who are actually associated with innovation in the marketplace, so it makes sense that we include any obstacles in the Tax Code or any opportunities we may have, as the Senator from Tennessee suggested, to create incentives for investment and innovation. There is a relationship between this amendment and the first one I brought up. I think we all know that investment, incentives for investment, are the catalyst for the research and development that results in innovation in the marketplace. As a nation, if we do not do more to attract capital, if we do not do more to encourage investment in our country, then those investments are not going to be here. For many years we have been concerned that because of certain trade policies and other things we do internally, we have lost low-wage jobs. But increasingly we are hearing that because the investment dollars are moving overseas, behind those investment dollars go the high-tech jobs that are involved with research and development. Both of these amendments are important. I would particularly like votes on this because it was stripped out once. I am concerned that if we do not have a vote and give the Members an opportunity to show support, particularly for this tax study, it will disappear again in conference. My hope is we can have a vote and the yeas and nays on these amendments. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. That is fine. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. I wish to bring up three amendments and briefly speak on them, if I can.

Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent to bring up amendment No. 928.

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill for giving me time to speak on this important issue. The issue of American competitiveness is very important to me, as I know it is to all Americans. It is the security of our jobs and our economic future. I am here today to propose some amendments. I will begin with one that I think will improve the bill. I wish to first discuss Sarbanes-Oxley and how it relates to competitiveness in America. The bill we are discussing, which is S. 761, the America COMPETES Act, seeks to improve America's international competitiveness by strengthening the quality of our labor force. However, labor is only one component of economic growth. Capital investment is another critical component of any vibrant and growing economy. America's competitiveness is being challenged by other countries, not only on the labor front but with capital formation as well. We could say, as Senator Alexander mentioned, this bill focuses on brainpower. What we are trying to do is say brainpower plus capital equals success in America. In 2000, $9 out of every $10 in stock offerings from foreign companies were invested inside the United States. In 2005, that number completely flipped, and $9 of every $10 in stock offerings from foreign companies were invested outside the United States. Some might argue this is simply the result of foreign companies wishing to list closer to home, but I am afraid that is not the case. Cross-border listings are at an alltime high, and we are losing the competition for foreign capital. This chart demonstrates how the United States is doing compared to others when it comes to attracting foreign capital. We begin in 2002 when Sarbanes-Oxley took effect. One can see this dark-blue line at the bottom is the U.S. exchanges, which have stayed basically flat, while markets in Hong Kong, London, and Singapore have continued to grow. There is no reason we should continue to lose ground to these other countries when it comes to investing. We need to remember as Americans that the dollars which are used for research and development come from investment capital. There is no need for us to be spending billions and billions of dollars to encourage Americans to be better at math and science if the research and development is moving to other countries. Some say these trends are simply the result of more sophisticated markets springing up abroad, but the evidence suggests otherwise. When one speaks with international CEOs making the decisions to list on foreign exchanges, they repeatedly cite Sarbanes-Oxley as the reasons they have listed abroad. That is why a report commissioned by Senator Schumer and Mayor Bloomberg cited section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley as the reason international companies are no longer bringing their capital to the United States. Section 404 requires public companies to conduct an additional audit on their internal controls. These audits are most expensive for smaller companies. Numerous reports have found that section 404 produced a heavy cost upon small, publicly traded companies without a proportional benefit. As a result, the regulatory burdens of section 404 on small businesses and companies--well, companies are choosing to raise capital in other markets. A recent GAO study, requested by Senator Snowe, found the cost for small public companies to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley has been disproportionately higher than for large companies. Small businesses in the United States, afraid of complying with the complicated provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley, are choosing not to grow by listing publicly and are, instead, staying small and remaining private. This prevents capital formation, it stunts job growth, and it makes our country less competitive in the global economy. This is why Alan Greenspan recently said: One good thing; Sarbox requires a CEO to certify the financial statement. That's new and that's helpful. Having said that, the rest we could do without. Section 404 is a nightmare. This is not a politically inspired amendment. This is an amendment that recognizes we are hurting ourselves and we need to fix it. This is why an SEC advisory committee recommended that small businesses be exempt from section 404, and this is why I am offering the amendment today. My amendment, No. 928, would make section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley optional for smaller companies with market capitalization of less than $700 million, revenue of less than $125 million, or fewer than 1,500 shareholders. Section 404 reporting would be optional for these smaller companies, but they would have to notify their shareholders in their annual report. The Senate's Committee on Small Business held a hearing on this topic this past week, and I applaud Senator Kerry for looking into this important issue. As my colleagues may know, both Republicans and Democrats have suggested the need for reform, which makes my amendment consistent with the bipartisan nature of this bill. My proposal has been introduced as a freestanding bill in this Congress as well as the last Congress. It has also been introduced as part of a bill in the House by Representative Gregory Meeks, Democrat from New York, and enjoys broad bipartisan support. Despite broad bipartisan support for my amendment, I expect some will object to it based on timing. They may believe the Securities and Exchange Commission is preparing to deal with this problem, so we should give them more time to work. This is something I believed several years ago. But that is not only a weak excuse, it is a complete copout. It has been 5 years since Sarbanes-Oxley was enacted, and each year that goes by we are chasing more capital out of our country. The SEC has a responsibility to address this issue, but so do we. We wrote the law. Congress created this problem, and we should not hide behind some regulation when we have the ability to fix it. Furthermore, it is not clear that future action by the SEC will solve the problem. According to the Independent Community Bankers of America, the proposed internal control guidance under section 404 is unlikely to reduce audit costs, particularly for smaller public companies. Some may also object because this provision has not been fully examined in the committee of jurisdiction. This is a poor excuse as well. American competitiveness should not suffer because a committee in Congress has failed to do its job. A bill such as Senate Bill 761, which seeks to improve the competitiveness of our labor force but does nothing for capital formation, may result in a highly qualified labor force but without capital to spur economic growth and create the jobs they need to make. This is a competitiveness issue. It should be debated on this bill and we should all support it. There is no plan to consider this legislation later this year, and it is probably the last opportunity we will have to address it before the next election. My amendment is cosponsored by Senators Martinez, Cornyn, and Ensign, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. Yes, I do.

Mr. DeMINT. So the Senator would prefer my not bringing it up but only describing it?

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator, and I think he will find this amendment has a lot of bipartisan support. It actually was a part of the original bill. It is amendment No. 929, and it expands the study on barriers to innovation, which is in section 1102 of the bill. What we do is ask that this study include the impact of the IRS Tax Code on innovation. It is very consistent with the bill. My amendment does not remove anything currently called for in the study, it simply adds the provision that allows this study to include the effect of our Tax Code on innovation in America. Specifically, the amendment calls on the Director of the Office of Science and Technology, through the National Academy of Sciences, to study all provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, including tax provisions, compliance costs, and reporting requirements that discourage innovation. The IRS code increasingly overwhelms Americans with its growing complexity. It stymies entrepreneurship and economic growth, and it threatens to prevent future generations of Americans from enjoying the sort of upward mobility their parents and grandparents enjoyed. This important provision was originally included in the study in last year's bill but it was dropped. My amendment puts it back in, and it will help us identify ways the IRS Tax Code is discouraging innovation and weakening American competitiveness. I ask the Senator if he would still prefer I not bring it up? In the interest of time, it may be helpful to have it on the table, and we could perhaps then agree to it at a later time. Would the Senator still prefer I wait to bring it up?