Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Senator, and I yield the floor for the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 929.

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

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, in the interest of time--I know we are discussing two other amendments and the bill managers have asked me not to bring up a third. I will not bring it up at this time but I wish to speak on it, if that would expedite procedures here on the floor. My third amendment, which is amendment No. 930, which we will bring up at a later time, establishes a 60-vote point of order against appropriations bills that contain congressional earmarks for funds authorized in this bill, S. 761, the America COMPETES Act. The goal of this amendment is to ensure that funds authorized in the 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. 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-review system or peer-review process'' or ``exclude the awarding of any proposal by means of the merit-review or peer-review process.'' My goal here is to make sure this new fund does not become a new pot for earmarks, that we start directing this new money back to our States or congressional districts because we put new funds on the table. If these and other funds authorized in the bill are going to be allocated in the most efficient and most competitive way, the Senate must take steps to discourage the use of earmarks when appropriating funds for these programs. My amendment will not only preserve the integrity of the competitiveness allocation process but it will make America more competitive by making these programs more effective. In a bill that is about competition, this amendment makes sure the money is allocated on a merit-based competitive system instead of turning it into a new slush fund for Congress. Out of respect for the managers, I will not bring that amendment up at this point but I hope to do that at a later time. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DeMINT. For a clarification. The way this amendment is written, it is not all appropriations bills, just appropriations bills that are appropriating money for this act, the America COMPETES Act. We are not bringing in all the appropriations bills that will be brought to the floor. The point is, we are creating this new fund for competition. Instead of us in the future redirecting these funds in all directions, the bill has been very careful to lay out where this money will go in a way that we think is most efficient. This money will be allocated on a merit- based system. We have seen some of it before, how the National Science Foundation and others are merit based. We want to keep it that way. What we are trying to do is avoid, in the future, that this new money we have authorized starts being redirected. If something comes up that is important, that we agree on, we can always overcome a 60-vote point of order. But if we allow this to fester, as we have seen in the past, instead of going to create competition in America, it will be going off to special projects. So it focuses on this bill and prevents politically driven earmarks. Certainly we have directed the money for this whole bill. It doesn't change that. This is all authorized. We are not talking about authorized dollars, we are talking about redirecting it based on political motives in the future. I thank the Senator for allowing that clarification.

Mr. DeMINT. Could I make one additional comment? Again, I appreciate the Senator's remarks, and obviously we don't want to tie the hands of Congress unnecessarily, but when we are speaking of earmarks--and we defined it in this amendment ourselves. When we take this bill that was created for the purpose of improving competitiveness in America and we earmark, which means we target it to a specific State, locality, or congressional district other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process--when we take what we have done and basically pervert it into a system where I want it to go to South Carolina, or the Senator wants it to go to Tennessee, that has nothing to do with the original intent of the bill, we call that an earmark. We would like to prevent that if we could with this one bill, but I appreciate the courtesy of both managers to allow us to explain. I hope we will have an opportunity to bring it up and offer it later. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I appreciate the support of the majority. This is clearly a bipartisan idea. The underlying bill has in it a study to look at obstacles to innovation. This simply adds to that with a study of our Tax Code to see how it might be obstructing innovation and investment in our country. It sounds as if we have good support. I encourage all my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to vote for the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, in a few moments the Senate will vote on two amendments related to Sarbanes-Oxley. The first is the Dodd-Shelby amendment, which is a nonbinding resolution that suggests the SEC and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board move ahead with changing the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations. My amendment, which will come after that, actually changes the law in one small section of Sarbanes-Oxley, which would facilitate that happening. Despite what has been reported today, my conversation with some of the regulators and some of the observers of the SEC is there is not real clarity as to how far the SEC can go in changing this one section that is problematic in Sarbanes-Oxley. We know from our work with Federal agencies that as long as there is doubt, there is no action. While there has been good intent from the SEC for many years, this bill has been destroying our capital formation in this country for nearly 5 years. Admittedly, Sarbanes-Oxley has done some good things, but I think it is beyond question particularly for small companies, small public companies, that section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley is doing untold harm in this country today. So the difference here is a nonbinding resolution which encourages the SEC to act and an amendment that actually makes that happen. I am going to support the Dodd-Shelby amendment. While I have some problems with the specific findings, the intent is right. The regulators have a responsibility to continue to look at their regulations to make sure they encourage competition and good enterprise in our country. So I am going to support the amendment. But Congress also has a responsibility to make sure that the laws we pass work, and if they are not interpreted properly by our regulatory agencies, that we go back and make those changes to make it work. So the ``sense of the Senate'' maintains the status quo for regulatory agencies to determine how we deal with Sarbanes-Oxley. While I know the chairman and ranking member remain hopeful that something will happen, the same thing was said to me well over a year ago when I talked to Chairman Cox and others that the changes were eminent, but since then in this country we have lost our status as the No. 1 market exchange. Instead of 9 out of every 10 IPOs being formed in this country with foreign capital, it is completely reversed, where 9 out of 10 are out of this country. Our trade competitors have Sarbanes-Oxley free zones that encourage capital to come that way instead of toward us. We cannot leave the responsibility for this law on the regulatory agencies. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for both amendments. I thank Senator Martinez, Senator Cornyn, and Senator Ensign for supporting and cosponsoring my amendment. I also thank Democratic Congressman Gregory Meeks from New York for having the courage to introduce this measure in the House. I also want to inform my colleagues that my amendment today is supported by the Independent Community Bankers of America. It is also being key voted by the Americans for Tax Reform, the Club for Growth, the Americans for Prosperity, and many other people who look at our economy across the country and realize it is time for Congress to act. We have waited for the SEC for 5 years and have seen capital chased from this country. It is time for Congress to take the responsibility for what we did in the first place, and I urge my colleagues to support both amendments. I yield to my colleague, the Senator from Florida, to speak on behalf of my amendment.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: These bills are side-by-sides, correct? This is not a second-degree amendment.

Mr. DeMINT. My colleagues can vote for both of these amendments. I encourage Members of the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, to vote for both of them because both are needed. We need the SEC to take its responsibility. But since there is some concern as to how far the SEC can go to correct this problem, my amendment simply changes one aspect of Sarbanes-Oxley that allows small companies--companies with $125 million in revenue or less, or less than 1,500 shareholders--to voluntarily opt out of the external audit, with notification to their shareholders. These are certainly not huge corporations. This certainly doesn't gut Sarbanes-Oxley. It does what so many economic experts have encouraged us to do for years, and that is to fix the one small part of Sarbanes- Oxley that costs small businesses in a disproportionate way. I thank the managers and those who offered the side-by-side, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for both of them. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I am obviously disappointed the chairman will move to table. We have had a good debate on it. The debate on Sarbanes-Oxley has been going on for almost 5 years, since it was passed. Every time someone expresses a problem, they go right to section 404, and just to small businesses that are being hurt most by this. I talked with the SEC well over a year ago. I heard exactly the same thing I am hearing today: We are on it. It is going to happen very soon. Let me suggest this to my colleagues. Let us pass this bill today and send it to conference. That will be a few weeks of work. If the SEC responds, then take it out in conference. The Democrats are in control of the conference. There is no harm done. But let us not continue to allow investment capital to be shipped out of this country without doing anything about it. The only reason the SEC is even talking about it now is that we introduced this bill with Democrats and Republicans in the House. It is time to act now. Please vote for this bill. Let us move it to conference and shake up the SEC.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, in January this body took a significant step toward reforming the way we spend American taxpayer dollars. While debating the ethics reform bill, Senators voted 98 to 0 in favor of my amendment requiring transparency for 100 percent of Member-requested earmarks. This was an early sign that Congress was going to change the way we do business here in Washington. But since then, I am afraid my optimism has been tempered by a healthy dose of political reality. The ethics bill containing new Senate rules has been stalled, and its future enactment is anything but certain. In the meantime, the Senate has continued business as usual, as earmarking continues unfettered from transparency rules. The appropriators are soliciting earmarks. The WRDA bill is full of undisclosed earmarks, and none of the committees are complying with the anticorruption transparency requirements. Upon notice that I was going to offer this bill again on the floor, the Democratic leadership of the Appropriations Committee just issued a press release saying they were going to comply with these rules. That is really good news. So if the appropriators want to comply, there is no reason at all that we shouldn't enact this rule as a Senate rule. Yesterday's Roll Call reported that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is advancing two pieces of legislation packed with billions of dollars worth of earmarks, but the committee is not asking Senators to certify that they have no financial interests in the projects, at least for now. In other words, the Senate is continuing to conduct its business in the old way, which was rejected by the American voters. We cannot continue to wait. The Senate rules must be changed now if we are going to implement what the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the distinguished chairman, called an accountable, aboveboard, transparent process for funding decisions, and put an end to the abuses that have harmed the credibility of Congress. I agree 100 percent. My proposal, S. Res. 123, creates a new Senate rule that requires public disclosure of the earmarks contained in bills passed by committee. This disclosure includes the name of the Member requesting the earmark, the name and address of the intended recipient of the earmark, the purpose of the earmark, and a certification that the requesting Member and his or her spouse have no financial interest in the requested earmark. These are simple transparency ideas that the American people need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors to S. Res. 123: Senator Ensign, Senator McCain, Senator Enzi, Senator Martinez, and Senator McCaskill.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, this resolution will immediately require all Members who request earmarks to certify in writing that they have no financial interests in the requested earmark. Following the imprisonment of Congressman Duke Cunningham for selling earmarks for bribes, Americans need to know their elected officials are not using public office for private gain. This is simply information every Senator should be willing to provide, and I believe most are. But it is beginning to look as if the new majority is not really interested in shining light on the earmarking process. Before we left for the Easter recess, I asked unanimous consent for the Senate to adopt S. Res. 123 so that we could enact this important rule immediately. The majority objected and said this proposal needed to go through the ``appropriate process.'' That is a sad excuse. This rule has already gone through the normal process. It was offered as an amendment on the floor, it was modified by the leadership of the Democratic Party, and it passed 98 to 0. This is a Senate rule, and the only thing left for us to do is actually enact it. Let me just read a few quotes from the Democratic leadership when we worked out the language on this bill before. This includes a lot of Democratic language. Majority leader Harry Reid said: In effect, we have combined the best ideas from both sides of the aisle, Democrat and Republican, to establish the strongest possible disclosure rules in this regard. Majority whip Dick Durbin said: I am pleased with this bipartisan solution. I believe it reflects the intent of all on both sides of the aisle to make sure there is more disclosure. We have full agreement. The language has been vetted. The bill I offer today as a Senate rule is exactly the language we passed 98 to 0. The majority leader offered up his own excuse when he said his office was not notified in advance. In order to make sure that excuse is not used again, I sent a letter last week to the Democratic and Republican leaders notifying them of my intent to seek unanimous consent today to enact a Senate earmark disclosure rule--again, the one we have already passed 98 to 0. But I understand the other side has come up with a third excuse. This time, they are going to say that enacting earmark disclosure requirements will dilute the effect of the lobbying and ethics reform bill. This is probably the weakest of all of their excuses. How does enacting an ethics reform provision dilute its effect? The only thing diluting ethics reform is our unwillingness to abide by this new rule. This excuse rings hollow because the majority did not bother to include this rule in their original bill. When we brought it to the floor, they tried to kill it. I have tried to work in a bipartisan manner on this issue. I have been patient. But it has been over 80 days. The earmark process is continuing as usual, and all the American people are getting is excuses. It is time to enact this rule. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 123; further, that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. This section of the bill deals with the tree assistance program. It has no business being in a war supplemental. It is clearly legislating on an appropriations bill, and I believe it violates rule XVI.

Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 704 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I make a point of order that section 431, dealing with the tree assistance program, starting on page 150, line 13 and ending on page 151, line 15, violates rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I am certainly disappointed. This is something to which we have agreed. We worked out the language with the majority. Certainly, we should be operating under the rules that we have agreed to during this appropriations season. It is very unfortunate. I am very disappointed. I guess I have no choice, if the majority is going to object. I yield and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, earlier this year the Senate worked together to change the way we appropriate money in Congress. One of the big showdowns that we had earlier in the year with the new majority was the discussion of earmarks and how we would disclose them and be more transparent to the American people. We worked hard. I introduced an amendment that would provide disclosure at the committee level and asked that the committee put any earmarks on the Internet and tell who offered the earmark and what it would go for, to make sure there is no conflict of interest. Originally, the majority tried to table that motion, but once we worked together on language and worked out every detail, that amendment was agreed to 98 to 0. It was unanimous that we should stop earmarking the way we are today and use commonsense disclosure rules for America to know how we are spending its money. Unfortunately, that amendment is part of the lobbying reform, ethics reform bill that has gone to conference with the House that apparently is not going to act on it at all. My proposal has been that we take what we passed in the Senate. We are beginning the appropriations process again. Unless we impose these rules on ourselves, rules that we all agreed on, we are going to go through the same thing we did last year where we put all these bills together, with thousands of earmarks, and at the end of the year some of us are going to be forced to try to stop the whole process, which, hopefully, we will not do. What I would like to do today to fix this problem is take the amendment we have passed unanimously before and bring it up and pass it in the Senate as a Senate rule so we would operate under the rules that we have all agreed to during this appropriations season. The resolution number is 123, so fixing the current appropriations problem and earmark problem is as easy as 1, 2, 3. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration, and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 123; further, that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I object.