Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Senator from Hawaii. I need to make an important point. The whole point of my amendment is to put a regulation in law so it cannot be changed and contested. The amendment offered by Senator Inouye basically guts the amendment and eliminates the reason for the amendment. It moves from being a law to something that is subject to the whims of any future administration or Secretary. Our job here is certainly to be fair to workers, but our first priority is to protect the American people. Please, let's not allow convicted felons to work in our ports. Our job is to protect our ports. The second degree completely guts the whole idea of an amendment that makes this law. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, the amendment I have offered, No. 279, is very simple. It codifies the recent regulations issued by the Department of Homeland Security which bans certain criminals from gaining security access to our seaports. My amendment is needed to protect these regulations from outside groups that may challenge them in court, as well as from future administrations that may repeal or weaken them. My amendment is also bipartisan and should not be controversial. It was unanimously adopted by this body last year as part of the SAFE Port Act which passed 98 to 0. Unfortunately, it was gutted by the conference committee behind closed doors, and that is why I am offering it again today. As my colleagues know, the Maritime Transportation Security Act requires the Transportation Security Agency, TSA, to develop a biometric security card for port workers at our seaports that can be used to limit access to sensitive areas within a seaport. The security card is called a transportation worker identification card or, as we sometimes call it, a TWIC. The law requires that the Secretary issue this card to any individual requesting it unless the Secretary determines that the individual poses a terrorism security risk or if the individual has been convicted of treason, terrorism, sedition, or espionage. To clarify who poses a security risk, the Department of Homeland Security recently issued regulations that bar certain serious felons from receiving these TWICs. Specifically, the regulations permanently bar from our ports criminals convicted of espionage, sedition, treason, terrorism, crimes involving transportation security, improper transport of hazardous material, unlawful use of an explosive device, bomb threats, murder, violation of the RICO Act, where one of the above crimes is a predicate act, and conspiracy to commit any of these crimes. The Department of Homeland Security regulations also bar recent felons--defined as those convicted within the last 7 years or incarcerated in the last 5 years--from gaining access to our ports if they have been convicted of any of the following felonies: assault with intent to murder, kidnapping or hostage-taking, rape or aggravated sexual abuse, unlawful use of a firearm, extortion, fraud, bribery, smuggling, immigration violations, racketeering, robbery, drug dealing, arson, or conspiracy to commit any of these crimes. These regulations were developed after an extensive process that included consultation with the Department of Justice and Transportation to identify individuals who have a propensity to engage in unlawful activity, specifically activity that places our ports at risk. These regulations governing who can gain access to our seaports are nearly identical to the regulations that govern those who can gain access to our airports as well as those who can transport hazardous material in our country. These prohibitions are crucial because individuals who engage in this type of unlawful activity have a greater likelihood to engage in these acts or in acts that put American ports and American lives at risk. Our law enforcement officials understand this risk. They understand the threat our ports face when traditional criminals, particularly organized criminals, work with terrorists. For example, the FBI recently apprehended a member of the Russian mafia attempting to sell missiles to an FBI agent who he believed was acting as a middleman for terrorists. Joseph Billie, Jr., the FBI's top counterterrorism official, recently commented that the FBI is continuing to look at a nexus between organized crime and terrorists, and they are looking at this very aggressively. The threat not only comes from criminals working directly with terrorists, it also comes from criminals who may look the other way when a suspect container comes from a port. Joseph King, a former Customs Service agent and now a professor at the John J. College of Criminal Justice, outlined the concern very clearly: ``It is an invitation to smuggling of all kinds,'' he said. ``Instead of bringing in 50 kilograms of heroin, what would stop them from bringing in 5 kilograms of plutonium?'' The nightmare scenario here is where a criminal at one of our ports who may think he is just helping a friend smuggle in drugs inadvertently helps smuggle in a weapon of mass destruction. That is a risk we cannot take. I offered this amendment last year to address this threat and to ensure that serious felons are kept out of our ports. My amendment codified in statute the then-proposed TWIC regulations. As I said earlier, my amendment was unanimously adopted and was included in the Senate-passed version of the SAFE Port Act that passed 98 to 0. Unfortunately, my amendment was also completely gutted behind closed doors in the conference committee. The provision went from addressing a list of 20 serious felons to a list of just 4. These 4 felonies are so rare that the conference committee made the provision almost meaningless. I am extremely disappointed by the stealth opposition to this measure. I cannot understand who would oppose banning serious felons from gaining secure access at our American ports. While no Senator has been willing to publicly oppose this measure, the longshoremen's labor union was more than happy to take credit for gutting the provision. Late last year, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union claimed credit for killing the provision in the SAFE Port conference committee. They stated in their newsletter: We have heard rumors that Senator DeMint is particularly angry with the union's successful lobbying effort to strip his anti-labor provision. He may attempt to amend another piece of legislation, so the union will stay on guard to protect its members' interests. Apparently, this union has stayed on guard because it was able to get five Senators to object to this vital homeland security measure when I tried to pass it the second time late last year. I wish I could say that the unions would stop at fighting this legislation on the Senate floor, but they are also gearing up to mount a legal battle against Department of Homeland Security regulations. In response to a Wall Street Journal editorial on the subject, the union stated that the TWIC security regulations were `` . . . double jeopardy and unconstitutional.'' This is a clear indication that they have a legal challenge in mind. It seems clear that once longshoremen start applying for TWIC cards and some members are rejected because they are convicted felons, the labor unions are going to take the Department of Homeland Security to court and try to bog the regulations down in lengthy legal battles. The consequence will be that as we continue to fight this global war on terror, America's ports will be staffed by serious felons who cannot be trusted. Some of my colleagues may be tempted to come to the defense of the longshoremen. They will say that the individuals in question have paid their debt to society and barring them is gutting our port workforce. They may also claim that the crimes listed in the Department of Homeland Security regulations are somehow not related to homeland security. These objections are just plain wrong. I don't disagree that convicted felons should be given a second chance. I hope they get back on their feet and become productive members of their communities. What I disagree with is that we should give serious felons a pass, literally and figuratively, to access the most secure areas of America's port infrastructure. When they are fresh out of prison, we should not trust them with the most vulnerable areas of our ports. The stakes here are simply too high. As for the concern that barring these individuals will empty the ranks of the port workforce, the facts don't agree. When the Department of Homeland Security issued nearly 350,000 ID cards for hazmat truckdrivers and subjected them to the same background check that is required by my amendment, only 3,100 were rejected. That is less than 1 percent. The fact is, we are talking about an isolated group of serious felons here, and the workforce in the United States is dynamic enough to supply the few thousand longshoremen who may be needed to replace those we let go. Finally, some may say these felonies do not represent serious crimes. To that, I would ask any of my colleagues to tell me which individual he or she wants working at our ports where security is so important: Murderers? Extortionists? Drug dealers? Bomb makers? I just want to hear the rationale for trusting these criminals with our national security. The bottom line is this: My amendment applies nearly the same protections to seaports that are already applied at our airports. It will make us safer by keeping individuals who have shown a willingness to break the law outside our ports. This is extremely important. We can spend all the money in our Treasury trying to screen cargo, but if we don't screen the people who work at our ports, we cannot expect to be safe. I do wish to thank several people for supporting this important policy. First, I thank the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, who was very helpful to me during the debate on the SAFE Port Act last year. I also thank the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, for his support. I should also say that the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, was also helpful in getting this provision into the bill. This is a bipartisan proposal, and it should not be controversial. Americans expect us to check and verify the nature of the people who work at our seaports, and we have a responsibility to ensure that happens even if it upsets a labor union that feels compelled to protect the jobs of a small group of serious felons. My amendment codifies in statute these important security regulations, and I hope all of my colleagues will support it. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important measure, and I will be happy to work with the bill managers to arrange a time to come back to the floor if further debate is needed. I thank the Chair for this time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I thank the managers of this bill for the time and effort they have put into it. It is almost 400 pages long, and it contains numerous provisions. I look forward to working with the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, in the coming days to make this bill better. I call up amendment No. 279.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to comment on the second-degree amendment that has been offered by my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye.

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

Mr. DeMINT. Three or 4 minutes.

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Senator. I appreciate the Senator fitting me in. Again, I am speaking on the second degree to my amendment that is related to port security. As we talked about here several times on the floor, and actually passed last year, it is important that the people who are working at our ports are people we can trust to use the equipment and technology they are given to keep the people of America safe. The amendment I have offered is consistent with--in fact, it is identical to--the regulations that the Secretary and the homeland defense agency have put together so that we will not have convicted felons working in our ports around this country, so that we know the people who are operating our most secure areas are people who have not proven to be susceptible to crimes. Senator Inouye is offering a second degree to my amendment that would allow the Secretary to change some of these crimes or felony convictions or to modify the rules. The Secretary of Homeland Security has not asked for this. In fact, he is supporting the amendment we have. I cannot imagine any future Secretary or future administration wanting to eliminate some of these felonies. The whole point of having this amendment and putting it into law is so that our agencies are not subject to lawsuits and constant harassment to change the criteria for working in the secure areas of our ports. So I appeal to my fellow colleagues, a vote for this second-degree amendment is a vote to gut my amendment. It is a vote to allow in the future any administration or this administration to eliminate certain felonies that would keep convicted criminals from working in our ports. I encourage my colleagues not to vote for this second degree. Vote for my amendment, which everybody in this body has voted for unanimously in the past. Again, I thank the Senator from Connecticut and Senator Collins for the opportunity to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about my amendment No. 253 that I would like to offer to the fiscal year 2007 omnibus spending bill. My amendment seeks to strengthen the provisions in section 112 dealing with earmarks. According to the sponsors, the goal of this section is to turn off the hidden earmarks for this year's spending, but, unfortunately, it does not achieve that goal. First, the language in H.J. Res. 20 say--on page 9--that hidden earmarks shall have no ``legal effect,'' but it does not clearly state that hidden earmarks shall have no guiding effect. These earmarks already have no legal effect. The point of this section was not to restate current law, but rather to make it clear that hidden earmarks have no effect, legal or otherwise. As my colleagues know, over 95 percent of all earmarks are not even written into our appropriations bills. If we don't fix the language in this resolution we are debating today, all of these earmarks could continue. It is not certain that they will but they could and that is something we should fix to protect American taxpayers. Our Federal agencies need to understand that hidden earmarks mean nothing and should be completely ignored in their decisionmaking. Our Federal agencies need to spend American tax dollars in ways that meet their core missions and serve true national priorities. Federal agencies should not feel pressure to fund special interest earmarks written by the powerful lawmakers who may cut their funding in retaliation. Second, the language in H.J. Res. 20 applies to hidden earmarks in the fiscal year 2006 committee reports, but it does not turn off the hidden earmarks buried in committee reports prior to 2006 or those after it. In addition, the language does not turn off earmarks that may be requested through direct communications between lawmakers and our Federal agencies, either by phone or in private emails. I understand that the Democratic leader is not going to allow any amendments. The Democratic leader scheduled this debate right before the Government's current funding expires so we will all be forced to accept it. This practice has been going on for years, and I am afraid it has become very destructive. We are going to vote on whether to cut off debate on this measure today at 2:30 p.m. and I will be forced to oppose that motion. Since the Democratic leader has blocked me and other Senators from getting votes on our amendments, I cannot in good conscience vote to cut off debate. My amendment makes small changes to this resolution that would greatly improve its integrity, and there is still time to send this measure back to the House for its approval. I also want to make it clear that while we have a responsibility in this body to address hidden earmarks in this resolution, the President also has a responsibility to do his part. In a letter that I sent last week, I called on him to instruct his agencies to ignore all earmark requests that do not have the force of law, and I believe he will. He said in the State of the Union Address this year that: Over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate--they are dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You didn't vote them into law. I didn't sign them into law. Yet, they're treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice. It appears as though our Federal agencies are beginning to follow through on the President's directive. Last week, a memo was circulated at the Department of Energy that said: Because the funding provided by H.J. Res. 20 will not be subject to non-statutory earmarks and the President's policy on earmarks is clear, we must ensure that the Department only funds programs or activities that are meritorious; the Department itself is responsible for making those determinations. This is a great sign of progress and I hope other agencies will circulate their own memos to this effect. Our agencies have been under the thumb of powerful appropriators for so long, it may be difficult for them to transition to a world without earmarks. But that is what they must do because that is what the American people expect. Americans want their Federal tax dollars to be spent in competitive ways that meet the highest standards. If a project is going to get Federal funding, they expect--just like with a Federal contract--that the money go to the project with the most merit regardless of whose State or district it is in. We are making great progress on reforming our budget process and reducing earmarks, and I urge my colleagues to help us continue this progress and win back the trust of the American people. Mr. President, I wish to make a few additional comments about my amendment No. 253 to the fiscal year 2007 omnibus spending bill. This is an amendment that would strengthen a provision in the bill that is under section 112. This gets back to the earmark discussion. The Senate can be proud of the debate and the votes we have taken to disclose earmarks and to eliminate the hidden earmarks that have been added in conference for years. Unfortunately, the language in this omnibus bill continues the status quo. It says that earmarks have no legal effect. It does not take the debate we have all agreed on and make it a prohibition that earmarks cannot be added in conference. We know that 95 percent of earmarks are in report language. They do not have the force of law. Yet, through intimidation and other ways, Congress has been able to get the executive branch to follow through on these earmarks for years. My amendment would simply go back to what we have already agreed on as a Senate and prohibit these wasteful, hidden earmarks that waste billions of taxpayer dollars every year from being included in report language. I am encouraged that the White House is responding. We have a memo that the Energy Department sent out last year to its managers telling them not to give preferential treatment to nonbinding, nonlegal congressional earmarks; that earmarks should be meritorious, as they said in their memo, before they are considered. This would free up all the Federal agencies to focus their spending and their time on Federal priorities, not just specific special interest earmarks that a Member of Congress happens to attach to a bill. I understand the majority leader is not going to allow any amendments. That is very regrettable, particularly since it leaves out something on which I think we all agree. The cloture motion we have been asked to vote on at 2:30 is a motion to cut off debate. That means we can no longer talk about the provisions in ways that could improve this bill. For that reason, I am going to have to vote against cloture and hope the majority leader will reconsider, particularly amendments like this which are easy and which this Chamber has already voted unanimously to support. Mr. President, with that, I yield back.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I take a few minutes today, despite my hoarse voice, to discuss the fiscal year 2007 spending resolution that we will be debating next week. The operations of the Federal Government are currently being funded by a temporary spending measure that expires on February 15, and the proposed resolution will fund the Government for the rest of the year. It is important we understand how we got to this point. Last year, we did not debate and pass all of our annual spending bills before the November elections. When we came back after the election for the lameduck session, a few Members worked successfully to stop Congress from passing a last-minute, foot-tall omnibus spending bill--like this one--that would have been filled with thousands of wasteful earmarks. As a result, we passed an earmark-free stopgap spending measure that, if continued, would have saved the American taxpayer some $17 billion. There were several media reports last year that said Republicans were trying to push this debate into the future so Democrats would have to clean up this mess. That may have been true for some, but it was never true for me. My goal has always been to stop wasteful earmarks. I am happy to work with Members in either party to get that done. That is why I offered to work with the Democratic leader to pass a clean resolution this year that would not contain any new earmarks and that would keep spending at last year's levels. While the Democratic leader did not work with me on this measure, I am pleased to say that it does not contain any new earmarks. Let me say that again so that there won't be any confusion. There are no new earmarks in this spending resolution. I applaud the Democrats for continuing the progress we started last year. As my colleagues can see, this resolution is only 137 pages. That can be compared to where we were headed before we were able to stop the earmarks. It is a major improvement over the last omnibus spending bill we passed that has over 1,600 pages. Let me make another point clear if I could. This resolution does not stop the administration from enacting the hundreds and even thousands of earmarks that are not written into this bill. As my colleagues know, over 95 percent of all earmarks never show up in our bills but are buried in hidden committee reports that do not carry the force of law. This resolution says--the one we are considering next week--that the earmarks contained in fiscal year 2006, in the committee reports in 2006, shall have no legal effect. That is a good thing, but those earmarks had no legal effect anyway. The administration was not bound by them last year and is not bound by them now. Also, this resolution is completely silent with respect to the earmarks in fiscal year 2007 in those committee reports. I am not sure why these reports were left out of this measure, but it appears to be a glaring mistake. The supporters of this resolution say it is earmark-free. While that is technically true, earmarks can still sneak in the back door. I praise Democrats when they call for a moratorium on earmarks, but this resolution does not actually achieve that goal. That is why I am sending a letter to the President today asking him to do his part by prohibiting anyone in his administration from giving preference to any earmark request that is not legally binding. We need to put a stop to committee report earmarks. We need to end the practice where a Member calls up a Federal agency and threatens its funding if it does not fund that Member's pet project. Our Federal agencies need to be free to use American tax dollars in ways that meet true national priorities rather than serving one special interest or another. The President has the power to stop secret earmarks. He said in his State of the Union that he wants to stop them. I hope he will do so. This spending resolution has several other flaws. For example, it uses budget gimmicks to hide its true cost. The proponents say it does not exceed the budget, but that is less than honest. First, it cuts spending on national defense programs with the expectation that funds will be added as emergency spending later this year. This is not the time to cut defense and security spending while adding social programs. It is not honest to hide spending this way. Second, the resolution also pays for new spending by cutting funding in budget accounts that are already empty. These are phony offsets, and they should not be used. This resolution not only pretends to reduce spending in places where it does not, it also fails to reduce spending where it should. First, the resolution leaves out thousands of congressional earmarks worth billions of dollars. Rather than passing those savings along to American taxpayers, it spends them on other programs. Second, this resolution fails to eliminate a number of programs which were proposed for termination by the President and agreed to last year by the House and the Senate Committee on Appropriations. These programs should be terminated, but this resolution fails to do so. There are a number of problems with this resolution. I hope we can fully debate this measure and offer amendments to make it stronger. I understand the Democratic leader does not intend to allow amendments, which is very unfortunate since we have plenty of time to consider and debate them. The current stopgap spending measure lasts for another week, and the House can easily take up our final bill and pass it in a matter of hours. I am glad there are no new earmarks written into the text of this resolution, and I thank my colleagues for that, but if we are not allowed to fix other problems in this resolution, I will not be able to support it. As I am sure many of my colleagues remember, I came to the floor a few weeks ago and had a spirited and important debate with the Democratic leader on how the Senate will disclose earmarks. We worked through that issue and came to a bipartisan agreement that resulted in earmark disclosure rules that were unanimously approved. It was a clear example of how this body can and should work together. I believe we can do that again on this resolution. I hope the Democratic leader will reconsider his position and work with us to allow a limited number of amendments. Madam President, I yield the floor and the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT. Ten minutes.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise to speak about one of the most important issues of our time: the worldwide war on terror. I have to say I was disappointed to read in this morning's Roll Call that many of my Democratic colleagues are using this debate for the 2008 elections rather than focusing on the real damage that the resolution we have been discussing will do to our national security. One of our greatest Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, once said, ``It is not the critic who counts. The credit,'' he said, ``belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming. ``The credit,'' Roosevelt said, belongs to the man ``who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly.'' At this very moment, our Commander in Chief and those he commands are daring greatly. Our men and women in uniform are paying with blood, sweat, and tears. Yet many in this body prefer to sit in the stands and offer criticism rather than support. For the past 50 years, the Middle East has been a cauldron of brutality, war, and despair. The region's instability has threatened the entire globe and reached our shores on 9/11 with a stark awakening. This is why we are involved in the Middle East. The future security of our homeland is tied directly to a successful outcome not only in Iraq but in Afghanistan, Lebanon, the Palestinian territory, and a number of Middle East countries that harbor evil men who foment hate through a perverted version of Islam. Yet as our efforts in Iraq encounter fierce resistance from a determined and evil enemy, support for our efforts has waned here in Congress. Instead, many of my colleagues prefer to support a nonbinding resolution that would express disapproval of the President's plan to reinforce our troops in Iraq. Voting for this resolution is not leadership, it is criticism-- criticism without the courage of offering real solutions. While this resolution may be toothless by force of law, its symbolism is dangerous. Voting to condemn the President's plan is a vote of no confidence in the mission we have told our troops to fight and die for. But it is also a slap in the face to General Petraeus just days after we voted unanimously to support his leadership of our troops in Iraq. ``Godspeed, General,'' was what one of my colleagues said before introducing the very resolution that would undermine the general's authority and his plan for victory. This is not leadership. We were elected to make tough decisions and that requires understanding our choices, selecting the best choice, and then following through. But I am afraid the critics in this body do not acknowledge the real choices before us. There are only three: First, to continue the unworkable status quo; second, to admit defeat and withdraw; third, to renew our strength until we win. I respect my colleagues who disagree with the President's strategy in Iraq, but only if they exercise leadership and support an alternative solution, one that proposes a serious path to victory, or announces defeat and ends our involvement immediately, not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East, because America will no longer have any credibility to carry out our work in any part of the world. If my colleagues do not support sending reinforcements to Iraq, they should introduce legislation blocking that action. While I believe this is shortsighted and wrong, it would at least be genuine leadership. My hope is we will stop trying to second guess past decisions in order to lay blame and instead remember we are locked in a struggle much larger than Iraq. It is a struggle of security, hope, and freedom versus hate, despair, and fear. The battlefield is the entire world. We must understand the stakes and demonstrate real leadership. This is not the President's war, it is freedom's war, and we all share the responsibility for the outcome. A century later, Teddy Roosevelt is still correct. The critic ``who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better'' is destined to be relegated to that terrible place ``with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.'' There is only one policy worthy of the blood and sweat of our troops: a policy that completes our mission with dignity, honor, and victory. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Colorado be able to speak for 10 minutes following my remarks and the remarks of Senator Coburn.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, how much time does the minority have?

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Senator from Texas, and I would like to add my comments to his. We are certainly discussing probably one of the most deadly serious issues that I have been a part of since being in the Congress. I must start by expressing my respect for the Senators who are proposing this resolution. I know their intent is good. They have heartfelt concerns about what we are doing. But what I would like to do is remind all of us that our role is a role of being leaders, not just being critics. As elected officials, we know what it is like to have critics second-guess all the decisions we make, but our job as Senators is to be leaders; and to be leaders, we have to make good decisions. If we make good decisions, we have to know what our real choices are. I am afraid those who are proposing this resolution are not considering the real choices because we can keep the status quo, we can withdraw and be defeated, or we can continue until we win and accomplish our goals in Iraq. This resolution is a resolution of defeat and disgrace. There is no other way it could come out. That is the choice they are making. That is the decision they are making because we know if we withdraw and leave this to the Iraqis when they are not ready, we will lose all. Not only will we be disgraced as a nation, but we will have probably the biggest catastrophe--human catastrophe as well as political catastrophe--in the Middle East that is going to occur. We have to discuss the real implications of that choice. I oppose this resolution because it does not support our mission, it does not support success, and it makes the decision for defeat. Real leaders would come up with a plan of action that they follow through on. And whether we agree with the President or not, he has put a plan on the table and he intends to follow through on it with all the advice he can get from his military people. Our role is not just to criticize that, but if we don't agree, it is to come up with another plan, propose it, and our responsibility is to sell it to the American people--not just to criticize, not to come up with resolutions that don't mean anything, intended to embarrass the President. But what it really does is deteriorate the morale of our troops. I know we are frustrated with this war, and the fear of failure is all around us. But we cannot digress into being critics in this body. Our job is to lead. I want to conclude this morning with some comments from the soldiers. I know other Senators have called parents who have soldier sons and daughters who have been killed. I have not had one who told me to get out of Iraq. I have had a lot of them tell me: Win. That is how to honor the sacrifice is to win. SPC Peter Manna: If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything we have done here is all in vain. We have a number of these, but I don't have time to read them all. SGT Manuel Sahagun said: One thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way. Americans are not against this war; they are against losing. They need to know we can win it. General Petraeus, the best general that we have, whom we have just approved, confirmed in the Senate, has told us that we can succeed with the President's plan. This is our last best hope to leave Iraq as a free democracy and to help stabilize the Middle East. The other choice is defeat and disgrace. Mr. President, I call on all of my Senate colleagues not to support this resolution and to act as leaders: to put forward a plan or support the one that the President has put forward. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. There is 5 minutes left?

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I intend to vote against the bill before us today because it really does not do anything to help low wage workers in this country in supporting families, buying health care, or giving them the flexibility they need to deal with family issues as well as hold a full-time job. I have consistently opposed a Federal wage mandate because I believe it is bad policy that hurts the very people we are trying to help with this bill. Despite that, I have sought to engage in constructive debate on this bill and offer amendments that would make it better. Unfortunately, over the course of this discussion, I have been forced to conclude that this whole debate is--let's just say less than honest. What we are talking about here in the Senate is not really about helping low-income workers; this is about mandating a starting wage, not a minimum wage, in a select group of States. This is a mandated starting wage because the facts show that two-thirds of minimum wage workers earn a raise within a year. We also know that most of these are working for restaurants and small businesses, and most of them are teenagers or young folks working part time. The Democratic proposal before us targets certain States disproportionately while leaving many other States completely or relatively unaffected. If passed, my home State of South Carolina would be subjected to a 41-percent increase in the Federal mandate and the inevitable job loss that will come with this. However, States such as California, Vermont, Massachusetts, Oregon, and others would not be required to raise their minimum wage at all. This is because 28 States plus the District of Columbia have passed laws raising their minimum wage above the federally mandated $5.15 per hour. Some of those States, such as the ones I just mentioned, have gone well beyond the $7.25 which this Federal mandate will implement. If we are to have a minimum wage at all, it is better to have a Federalist system of government and individual States could continue to set their own minimum wage levels, rather than the Federal Government. After all, different States have very different economies as well as very different costs of living. We know that a dollar will go a lot further in San Antonio than in San Francisco, and we need to recognize that. Mr. President, $7.25 in San Francisco is not a bit of help, but in another State that is a lot more money. To that effect, I have offered an amendment to the current proposal that would have raised the minimum wage $2.10 in every State across this land. Had my amendment been adopted, this bill would have at least been more fair in the way it imposed its unfunded mandate. Ironically, the motion to strike my amendment was based on the fact that it was an unfunded Federal mandate, which is precisely what the underlying bill is at this point. We have tried to add some other provisions. There is some tax relief for small businesses that mostly hire minimum wage workers, but we have not gone nearly far enough. I heard my dear colleague from Massachusetts oppose very vocally any tax relief for small businesses that will bear the brunt of an increased minimum wage. I think it is just important to point out what we are trying to do. This is a chart which compares the amount of, what some of us would call porkbarrel spending for what we call the Boston Big Dig. The Federal Government's part of bailing this out is $8.5 billion. What we are asking for, for thousands of businesses and millions of low wage workers across this country, is tax relief of less than that, that would help people keep more workers and be more profitable. I understand I am running out of time. I hope this whole debate about helping low wage workers would include those areas which will really help people who are working full time at $8, $10, $12 an hour and having a difficult time getting by: If we could make that health care more accessible and more affordable; if we could do for them what we do for Federal Government workers and give them flexibility so if they need an afternoon off to drive on a field trip one day on one week, they can work an extra 4 or 5 hours the next week to make it up, then they call it even--there is no overtime, there is no penalty. Government workers get it, but we will not give that same benefit to workers all across this country. I am going to vote against cloture on this bill because cloture is designed to cut off debate. Many of the amendments that would help low wage workers are being eliminated. What it comes down to is just an unfunded mandate on several States, leaving out others.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Thank you. Again, I thank the Senator for his good debate. I appreciate this opportunity. I think if we listen to what each other is saying--I appreciate the Senator's concern for South Carolina workers and I hope he appreciate my concern for Massachusetts. As Senator Kennedy has said, you set the livable wage in Massachusetts at over $11, so $7.50 an hour for the minimum wage is certainly not acceptable. I do not think anyone would argue that that is enough, and we need to do better. I would hope no Member of the Senate would be concerned that a worker mandating over $7.50 is a problem, and particularly in high cost of living States. There are a number of things that have been said we need to think about because we put up that my amendment would cause States which have already passed their minimum wage to have to pay more. In fact, this underlying bill is going to do that to many States. There are many States in this country which have passed their own minimum wage that is over $5.15 but is under the current mandate in this bill. So when we pass it, we are going to override the legislatures and the people in many States. That is part of this whole argument. Now, in this day and time, with the varying costs of living across this country and 29 States already passing their own minimum wage, does it continue to make sense for us to establish a one-size-fits-all minimum wage for this whole country? I think not. But I do think if we are going to stand on the floor of the Senate and argue on behalf of the American worker, the minimum wage worker in this country, and promise to raise that minimum wage, then we should do it fairly and equitably across this country. Again, I encourage my colleagues to realize what this bill does is override States. That is the whole idea of the Federal minimum wage, to say we do not believe States will do the right thing, so we are going to. But if we are going to do the right thing, let's make it 100 percent. Let's not make another false promise to the American people. If we are going to raise the minimum wage $2.10, let's do it across the entire country. So again, I appeal to my colleagues. If we are going to do it, let's do it right, let's do it fairly, and let's meet this promise to every American minimum wage worker. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Chair. Well, here we are again. A couple of weeks ago, we were here in the Senate Chamber talking about the need to have full disclosure of earmarks--pet projects that are added into bills, only to find that the underlying bill only disclosed about 5 percent of all the earmarks. After a lot of procedural maneuvering and give-and-take, fortunately, Republicans and Democrats came together and realized that if we are going to do this--tell the American people we are going to disclose earmarks--then we should do it, and we should do it for all earmarks, and we should be open and honest about what we do. Fortunately, we fixed that problem. But here we are again today. Now we are talking about raising the minimum wage for American workers. We have had passionate pleas, which are warranted. There are too many people in this country who don't make a livable wage. We, as Senators, Congressmen, and as Americans, should do everything we can to help people earn a livable wage and better. There have been a lot of passionate speeches on the floor about, What do we do with a single mom with two kids working at the minimum wage? How can they possibly get by? It is true. It is very true. But as we look at this minimum wage bill and as we look out on America and promise to give every minimum wage worker a raise, we find that, if you really look at the bill, less than half of the workers who are working at the minimum wage will receive a $2.10 increase. Many will receive nothing at all. So the amendment I have introduced is one that would give 100 percent of Americans working at the minimum wage a raise because that is, in effect, what we are promising as we debate on the floor. This amendment is called minimum fairness for workers. That is what it is all about. The idea is that every American working at minimum wage will receive a $2.10 increase as we have promised. It is important to realize that America is very diverse and different. States have very different costs of living. As we look across the country, there are many States that have a much higher than average cost of living, and some have a much lower cost of living. Actually, more than half of the States in this country--29--have passed a minimum wage that is higher than the $5.15 national Federal minimum wage. We see, if you look at Massachusetts, for instance--the State of Senator Kennedy, who has been a great defender of the minimum wage and the average worker, which I commend him on--it is one of the higher cost of living States in this country. They have raised their minimum wage to $7.50. I think we would all agree that a single mom with two children living in Boston, MA, making $7.50 an hour is not making a livable wage. The fact is, that same family living in South Carolina and making $5.15 an hour is doing better than those who are making $7.50 in Massachusetts because of the cost of living. Many of the Southern States have a lower average cost of living--cost of an apartment, cost of food, and cost of transportation and taxes; it is much lower. So many States across the country have looked at their cost of living and have raised their minimum wage higher than the national average because of that cost of living. As we look at raising the national minimum wage again--and we know it has been years since we have done that--we need to realize that the cost of living across this country is different. I commend States such as Massachusetts that have recognized that and passed a minimum wage that is higher than the national average. But it is not fair and it is not honest for us to have a national minimum wage debate and leave more than half of the minimum wage workers out of this whole promise of a wage increase. It is important for us to look across the country and see what this minimum wage bill will do if we don't adopt the amendment I am talking about. All of the States here on the chart in blue are States where the minimum wage workers will receive less than a one-dime--10 cents--increase if we pass this bill. Most of them will receive nothing at all--after all of the promises. These are some of the highest cost of living States in the country. My distinguished colleague from Massachusetts talked about the importance of raising the minimum wage. I know he would agree that someone making $7.50 an hour in Boston, MA, is not making a livable wage. If we are going to promise to help these people, the people working in Massachusetts deserve a raise as much as the people working in South Carolina. But under this bill, the minimum wage worker in Massachusetts will receive no increase; Vermont will receive no increase; Connecticut, Rhode Island, Washington State, Oregon, and California will receive no increase at all. Illinois will receive a dime. Yet with all this big national debate and hoopla, which has become symbolic of trying to help low-income Americans make more money, we know as a body that only a fraction of 1 percent of Americans working at the minimum wage will get it. Yet we are trying to tell them this bill is going to raise their standard of living, and we know that less than half of the minimum wage workers in this country are going to receive a $2.10 increase. This amendment is about 100 percent, just as we did 100 percent of earmarks. We got together, we realized the underlying bill didn't work, and we did the right thing. I think there are much better ways to help people earn a livable wage than mandating that they get an increase. But if we are going to do it, let's do it right and let's be fair to all Americans. If we promise an increase for minimum wage workers, let's give every American working at the minimum wage a $2.10 increase so that a person working in Massachusetts with a higher cost of living would get a raise, just as in Louisiana or Alabama or South Carolina. Every minimum wage worker across this land would have a $2.10 increase. I don't think that is too much to ask. If the Senate is going to spend 2 weeks talking about it, if we are going to have these impassioned pleas to help minimum wage workers, how can we leave half of minimum wage workers out of this whole process and pretend to be helping everyone? It doesn't make sense. This is about 100 percent. It is about fairness. It is about looking at these cameras in this Chamber and telling people the truth. If we are going to pass a minimum wage, if we think we are doing the right thing by mandating that we raise the minimum wage above where it is across this land, then let's have it apply to 50 States, 100 percent of our workers. That is the only fair and honest way. Again, I commend the States that have had the good judgment and the wisdom to recognize that their cost of living is higher, but if we don't include them here, then we have done an injustice to their workers. I encourage all of my colleagues to look at this amendment. This is not a trick. It is clear and simple. Every minimum wage worker in America will get a $2.10 increase if we adopt this amendment and then pass this final bill. I will make a commitment to the Senator from Massachusetts and to others here that while I have not supported this idea of mandating a minimum wage as the best way to improve and increase salaries, if we are fair, if we adopt this amendment, I will vote for the final bill for raising the minimum wage because it will be fair to all Americans, and I will encourage my colleagues who have not supported it in the past to be together as a Senate. Let's not come out and make an impassioned plea to raise the minimum wage in one State but not another. That doesn't make sense, and it is not fair and it is not open. It is about 100 percent, and I encourage 100 percent of my colleagues to look at this amendment, do the right thing, and include every minimum wage worker. I yield back my time to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. DeMINT. Yes.

Mr. DeMINT. How much time do I have?

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, this is a good debate and I think it is an important debate. I appreciate the points of Senator Kennedy. Many of them I agree with, but it is my hope that those same points will apply to the many States, such as Massachusetts and Washington State and California and many other States so that those people working at the minimum wage in those States will receive a minimum wage, too. I appreciate the fact that he has recognized that States such as Massachusetts did respond to the higher cost of living that their workers face by passing their own minimum wage. I think if we look across the country we will see that, again, 29 States have taken that action because it does cost more to live there. He points out that in the past I have not supported the increase in the minimum wage. It is not completely true, but many times I have not supported it because it has not been fair. It does not apply to all American workers. As the Senator from Wyoming just pointed out, if these bills that mandate wage increases do not include some provisions that help small businesses stay profitable, then they cannot hire these minimum wage workers. Many times they are teenagers. Many times they are trainees. We want to encourage every small business in this country to bring in as many workers as it can to train them and develop them because all the statistics tell us that folks who start at the minimum wage are generally only making it a few months before they prove that they can do the work and move on. It is a way to get a lot of people into the workforce. I think it is important to point out, as the Senator said I never supported a minimum wage, that I did, in fact, last year. The Family Prosperity Act was a package, a compromise package that raised the minimum wage just as we are talking about now, although it did not do it for every American. It eliminated the death tax, which adversely affects so many small businesses in the event of the death of an owner, whether it is a farm or small business. Many low-wage workers lose their jobs in the process of those businesses or farms closing. We packaged those together so we could do both: we could help the worker, but we could also make sure these small businesses continue to survive so they can hire those workers. There were other tax provisions in the Family Prosperity Act, but it was a good bill. This bill was not blocked by Republicans. It was proposed by Republicans and blocked by Democrats. It was a sad time when we saw in order to score political points that we turned our backs on workers in order to avoid giving small businesses the provision on the death tax that would allow families to continue to operate businesses. I would like to summarize my amendment so it is not misrepresented. It is not a trick. We are talking on the floor of the Senate about giving minimum wage workers a raise of $2.10. States have already passed minimum wage laws, and some of them are different. In most cases it is because of the higher cost of living. If we come in and raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 in a number of States, South Carolina and Massachusetts will have essentially the same minimum wage--maybe a quarter difference. But a minimum wage worker living in Boston, MA, faces tremendously higher costs than a minimum wage worker who lives and works in Greenville, SC. If we are going to be fair, and if we are going to make all these speeches on the floor of the Senate that we are going to help minimum wage workers, it does not make sense to leave out over half of the minimum wage workers in this country and go home and pretend that we have done something good. I have told the Senator that while I have opposed the strategies of wage mandates in the past, that if we are fair, if this bill includes 100 percent of minimum wage workers, I will not only support it, the final bill, I will encourage my colleagues to support it because it is the right thing to do. I believe if we were all speaking openly and honestly, we could say that even $7.50 an hour in Boston, MA, is not a liveable wage. If you took that up to $9.60, hopefully, we are getting at the point where people can survive. But $9.60 in Boston, MA, is no more money than $7.25 in South Carolina. Let's be fair to workers. Let's use what has already been started by the States, and that is recognizing cost of living to help every American worker. Again, this is just about simple fairness, as the Senator from Massachusetts has said. If we are going to promise an increase of $2.10 to minimum wage workers, let's do it for 100 percent of the workers in every State of our Union. Let's give them that increase today. I encourage my colleagues to not look at the past. If we can support fairness together, let's all vote together to give every American minimum wage worker a $2.10 increase. That is my amendment. I encourage my colleagues to support it. I yield and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I move to waive the applicable section of the Budget Act.

Mr. DeMINT. I yield back my time.

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