Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, am I correct in my understanding that I control the time between now and 2 o'clock.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I am not quite prepared to make all of my remarks about the amendments, but I did happen to be in the Chamber, and Senator Durbin was kind enough to open the discussion on two of my amendments, which I greatly appreciate. I am somewhat disappointed, however, that my colleague is not completely informed about these amendments. I will start with the amendment that attempts to more accurately define what an earmark is. My colleague went to great pains to continuously describe this as the DeMint amendment, the DeMint language. Unfortunately, I am not sure if he knows, but this is the language which the new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has put in this lobbying reform bill in order to make it more honest and transparent. I believe she has a very thoughtful approach. She campaigned on this, along with a number of Democrats and Republicans. We do need to disclose and make transparent every favor we do for an entity. I am beginning to get disappointed in this process because I did believe in a bipartisan way that we were going to come together to try to do things to show the American people that we were going to spend their money in an honest way and that was not wasteful. But as we look back on some of the scandals, the first one that comes to mind, obviously, is the Abramoff scandal--using Indian money to try to buy influence on Capitol Hill. Yesterday there was a thoughtful amendment by Senator Vitter that would have attempted to get the Indian tribes to play by the same rules everyone else in America plays by, that they have regulated contributions that are disclosed. The reason we had the scandal with Abramoff is the Indian tribes are not regulated by the Federal Election Commission. They can give unlimited amounts, unaccounted for, and it corrupted our process. The amendment yesterday very simply said: Let's just have everyone follow the same rules. Yet that was voted down, primarily by my Democratic colleagues. I hope they will rethink that. We would like to bring that amendment back to the floor and make sure there is adequate discussion because it is hard for me to believe that anyone who wants to clear up the corruption in Washington would overlook that a big part of the corruption was caused by unlimited donations by lobbyists from Indian tribes. Now we have another problem. We are talking about earmark reform. We use language here many times in the Chamber that I don't think Americans understand. When we talk about earmarks, we are talking usually about lobbyists who come and appeal on behalf of some organization or business or whatever for us to do them a favor with taxpayer money. It may be a municipality that wants a bridge. It may be a defense contractor that wants a big contract from us. And if we put that money in an appropriations bill designated just for them, it is an earmark. That is a Federal earmark. Nancy Pelosi had the wisdom to see that a lot of the problems we have had came from lobbyists asking for favors that went to Federal, as well as State, and other types of earmarks. What other corruption comes to mind as we think about last year? Duke Cunningham. The corruption there was a Federal earmark. The underlying bill we are discussing today would not have included that. It would not have been disclosed. Senator Durbin said that should not be disclosed, when most of the problems that we have come from that particular type of earmark. I think if you look at this in the big picture, we are talking about trying to let the American people know how we are spending their money. When we designate their money as a favor to different people and entities across this country, we want to let them know what we are doing so we can defend it, so they can see it. But what is a dirty little secret in the Senate and in the House is that while we are making this big media display of reforming earmarks and lobbying, 95 out of every 100 earmarks are in the report language of bills that come out of conference which are not included in the current discussion of transparency for earmarks. So the case my dear friend Senator Durbin has made today is that we want to disclose these particular favors for 5 out of every 100 earmarks in this Senate. That is not honest transparency. If we are going to do it, let's look at what the new Speaker of the House has asked us to do. If we are going to go through this process and if we are going to change the laws and try to tell the American people that now you can see what we are doing, let's don't try to pull the wool over their eyes. Speaker Pelosi is right. Many in this Chamber know I don't often agree with Speaker Pelosi, but she is the new Speaker. One of her first and highest priorities was to do this ethics reform bill right. At the top of the list is, if we are going to talk about the transparency to the American people, let's be honest and show them the way we are directing the spending of their money. I agree with her. I am here to defend her language on behalf of the Democratic colleagues on the House side that let's not try to pull the wool over the American people's eyes and tell them we are cleaning up these scandals when what we are doing here would not have affected the Abramoff scandal, the Cunningham scandal, or any of the scandals we have talked about in the culture of corruption in this Congress. Let's at least be honest with the reform we are saying is going to clean up this place. We are not being honest now. Speaker Pelosi has the right idea. Let me mention one other thing, the other amendment my colleague was nice enough to bring up. It is what we call the automatic continuing resolution. I have been in Congress now for 8 years. This is my ninth year. Every year, we get toward the end of the year and we have not gotten all of our appropriations done; it comes down to the last minute and they are saying we have to vote on this and we have to pass it or we are going to shut down the Government. So we create this crisis. Then we don't know what is in all of the bills. They are just coming out of conference and we have to vote on them, and most of us go home in December and find out about all of the earmarks and the favors that were put in the bills. We find it out later because we are not even given time to read them. We create this crisis and force people to vote on bills when they don't know what is in them. We are forced to vote on things that should not be in them so we won't close down the Government. We need to stop playing this game at the end of the year that forces us to accept what lobbyists and Members and staff have worked out that we don't even know about. If we are serious about decreasing the power of lobbyists in this place, we need to take the pressure off passing bad bills at the end of every year. This is a very simple idea. You will notice, despite what has been said, we passed a continuing resolution at the end of last year and didn't pass our appropriation bills. Of course, as you look around, you see the country is still operating just fine. The thing we don't have is 10,000 new earmarks. I would make the case we need a system that if we are not able to have ample debate and discussion about appropriations, we don't have all this fanfare about closing down the Government every year and scaring our senior citizens and our veterans that something is not going to come that they need. Let's have a simple provision that if we cannot get our work done and agree on what needs to be done and what should be in these bills, then we will have a continuing resolution until we can work it out. We will fund everything at last year's level, so that there is no crisis, there is just responsibility. That is what is missing here. When we put things into crisis mode, we cannot see what needs to be seen, or tell America what needs to be told about these bills, and we pass bills and find out later we have done things that embarrass us and diminish the future of our country. This is a simple amendment. I am very disappointed in my Democratic colleague who wants to help us, I believe sincerely, clean up the way lobbying works in this place by making things more transparent to the American people, but these two amendments--one will disclose all earmarks and the other will take the crisis out of every year and allow us to pass responsible legislation. Mr. President, I will have more to say later and I am sure other Members will also before these amendments come to a vote. Unfortunately, I have been told that my colleagues don't even want these bills to come to a vote. They want to try to table them so we will limit the debate. I will reserve the rest of my time and yield the floor right now, and we will discuss more about these amendments after lunch. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Connecticut and Utah for working with me to get the time to offer these amendments. When similar legislation was considered last year, I voted against it because I believed it did not do enough in the way of earmark reform. I believe the same is true for the substitute that is before us today, and I am offering these amendments to strengthen the bill and try to get it to the point where I can support it. My first amendment would enhance the disclosure requirements for congressional earmarks, for limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits to match those proposed in the other body by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The earmark definition in the substitute is woefully inadequate. It exempts earmarks for Federal entities as well as earmarks in report language. According to the Congressional Research Service, more than 95 percent of all earmarks in fiscal year 2006 were found in report language, not in the bill text. In effect, disclosure requirements in the substitute could conceivably apply to only 5 out of every 100 earmarks. The definition of a targeted tax benefit in the substitute also falls short, as it never explicitly defines what constitutes a limited group of taxpayers. Speaker Pelosi's language, however, explicitly defines a limited tax benefit as one that is targeted to 10 or fewer beneficiaries. I do not always agree with Speaker Pelosi, but on this issue we are in full agreement. The earmark definition agreed to in the House is by far the most comprehensive definition that is currently being debated, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. My second amendment would clarify that earmarks that were not in either the House or Senate version of the bill are out of scope when they are added in a conference report. As my colleagues know, a lot of earmarks find their way into conference reports where they cannot be voted on. This circumvents the legislative process, and it fosters abuse of taxpayer dollars. I am pleased that the substitute partly addresses this problem by creating a new 60-vote point of order against matters that are out of scope. This was designed to allow Members to object to out-of-scope earmarks and have them removed from the conference report, but the Senate Parliamentarian does not believe this provision is enforceable against earmarks specifically. My amendment would clarify that out-of-scope earmarks are subject to this new point of order in the Senate bill as well as rule XXVIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, which prohibits adding out-of-scope matters in conference. I believe this is the true intent of the substitute, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support it. My third amendment would prevent the Government from shutting down when regular appropriations bills are not enacted. It would do so by automatically triggering a continuing resolution that funds agencies at current levels for up to a year. The amendment would begin automatic funding on the first day of a lapse in appropriations, and it would end on the day the regular appropriations bill becomes law or the last day of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. This would eliminate the must-pass nature associated with regular appropriations bills which often pressure lawmakers into accepting spending bills with objectionable earmarks. I understand that the Democratic leader intends to get all of the appropriations bills done before the end of the fiscal year, but there are always unforeseeable events that must be dealt with, and there is always a chance that we will be faced with having to pass a bad bill or allowing parts of the Government to shut down. I certainly do not support Government shutdowns, and I know my colleagues do not either. My amendment would create a safety net that would avoid the crisis situations that often pressure lawmakers into supporting spending bills that they would not otherwise support. This is a commonsense proposal, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. My fourth amendment would prevent labor unions from using a member's dues to lobby Congress without the prior separate and written consent of that member. Union dues, like taxes, are compulsory for union members. We all believe Congress must be transparent and accountable in the way it spends tax dollars, and we should all support making unions transparent and accountable in the way they spend members' dues. Federal tax dollars cannot be used for lobbying but compulsory union dues can be used for lobbying. This is a real problem because it forces union workers to pay for lobbying with which they may not agree. If someone is a member of a trade association and they disagree with the actions of that group, they can always stop paying their dues. This freedom is not afforded to union workers. I tried on several occasions last year to pass legislation that would bar criminals convicted of serious felonies from gaining secure access to our ports. This proposal is essential to protecting our Nation from future terrorist attacks, and it is overwhelmingly supported by Americans. But the measure was killed by several unions that lobbied against it, and they killed it with dues that they forced union workers to pay without their consent. My amendment simply requires consent from union members before his or her dues may be used to lobby Congress. My amendment has nothing to do with political contributions. That is a debate for another day. But as long as unions force workers to pay dues as a condition of employment, they should get consent from their members before they use those dues to lobby Congress. My amendment would ensure that voluntary contributions will be the only contributions that can go toward lobbying Congress. I thank the managers again for working with me to get these amendments called up so our colleagues can begin reviewing them. I would be pleased to work with the managers in scheduling additional time to debate and vote on these amendments. I yield and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Gregg. This amendment would establish a legislative line- item veto. The American people sent a clear message in November that they were tired of a broken system that wasted their hard-earned money on pork projects. They want us to make the tough decisions and end the ``favor factory,'' where taxpayer money goes to the highest bidding lobbyist. The legislative line-item veto strikes at the heart of this ethics dilemma. It gives the President the ability to strip special spending and earmarks out of a bill and send them back to Congress for an up-or- down vote. By doing this, it allows the administration to work with Congress in a constructive way to reduce wasteful spending, to reduce the budget deficit and ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. The Senator's amendment permits the President to submit to Congress proposals to cancel specific appropriations, as well as items of direct spending and targeted tax benefits. Both the House and the Senate would have to vote on each Presidential proposal, without amendment, within a short timeframe. But the proposed rescission could not take effect unless approved by Congress. Mr. President, giving the President enhanced authority to seek rescission of new spending will help ensure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted on earmarks that are not national priorities. Since the Supreme Court struck down the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996, the number of earmarks has significantly increased. The line-item veto has a long history of bipartisan support. At least 11 Presidents from both parties have called for the authority to address individual spending items wrapped into larger bills. These Presidents include Grant, Hayes, Arthur, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. Additionally, the Governors of 43 out of 53 States already have this authority. Mr. President, the Senator's proposal is also consistent with the Constitution. In its 1998 ruling striking down the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996, the Supreme Court concluded that the act ``gave the President the unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statutes.'' However, this amendment does not raise those constitutional issues because the President's rescissions must be enacted by both Houses of Congress and signed into law. This amendment has been dramatically curtailed so that even supporters of congressional earmarks can support it because it limits the President to four rescission packages a year. The fast-track mechanism is similar to what we use for BRAC, as well as free trade agreements. Rather than forcing Americans to accept a foot-tall omnibus spending bill with thousands of earmarks, this amendment will give the President a second look at waste so we can all protect American taxpayers. This is an important amendment. We know that earmarks have gotten way out of control and must be reduced. Without this commonsense provision, this bill cannot be serious about addressing earmarks, as well as the corruption that is associated with them. The Senator's amendment is very sound, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside and I be permitted to offer four amendments.

Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator withhold his request?

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 664, S. 4047. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I would like to speak a moment on the bill, if I may. The Maritime Transportation Security Act requires the Transportation Security Agency to develop a biometric security card for port workers that would be used to limit access to sensitive areas within a seaport. To satisfy this law, TSA is developing a transportation worker identification credential--we call it TWIC--card. The law requires that the Secretary issue this card to an individual requesting it, unless he determines that the individual poses a terrorism security risk or if they have been convicted of treason, terrorism, sedition, or espionage. To fulfill this requirement of the Maritime Transportation Security Act, the Department of Homeland Security has drafted regulations that bar certain criminals from receiving these transportation worker identification credentials. Specifically, the Department of Homeland Security proposed regulations that would 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, murder, violations of the RICO Act where one of the above crimes is a predicate act, and conspiracy to commit any of these crimes. It would also bar recent felons, those convicted within the last 7 years, or incarcerated in the last 5 years, from working in secure areas of U.S. ports, if they have been convicted of any of these felonies: assault with intent to murder, kidnaping 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 proposed regulations were developed in consultation and coordination with the Departments of Justice and Transportation to identify individuals who have a propensity to engage in unlawful activity, activity that places our ports at risk. Further, these regulations are nearly identical to the regulations that govern those who have access to our airports and who are involved with transporting hazardous material in the United States. These prohibitions are crucial because individuals who engage in the type of unlawful activity described in the proposed regulations have a greater likelihood to engage in activity that puts American ports at risk. Our law enforcement officials understand this risk. They understand the threat our ports face with traditional crimes, particularly organized crimes, when they work with terrorists. For example, just recently the FBI apprehended a member of the Russian mafia attempting to sell missiles to an FBI agent he thought was acting as a middleman for terrorists. Joseph Billy, 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 that they ``are looking at this very aggressively.'' The threat is not only criminals working directly with terrorists, it is criminals looking the other way when a suspect container comes through the port. Joseph King, a former Customs Service agent and now a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, outlined the concern very clearly: It's an invitation to smuggling of all kinds. Instead of bringing in 50 kilograms of heroin, what would stop them from bringing in five kilograms of plutonium? A criminal in one of our ports may think he is just helping his buddies smuggle in drugs, but inadvertently he may be helping to smuggle a weapon of mass destruction into the United States. Earlier this year I offered an amendment to address this threat and ensure that serious felons are kept out of our ports. My amendment would have codified in statute the proposed regulations. The amendment passed unanimously and was included in the Senate-passed version of the Safe Port Act. Unfortunately, behind closed doors in the conference committee this amendment was almost completely gutted. The bill went from having language which prohibited 20 serious felonies that put our ports at risk to a list of just four--felonies so rare as to make the conference report language meaningless. I was extremely dismayed to see this language was stripped. I cannot understand who would oppose language that would ban serious felons from secure areas in American ports. The ranking member of the Commerce Committee, the Senator from Hawaii, has stated in the Congressional Record that he supported the original DeMint language. I understand the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the Senator from Alaska, also supported the DeMint language. I am at a bit of a loss to conclude who in the Senate opposed this strong homeland security provision. Today the Senator from North Dakota said several of his colleagues did, but we don't know who they are. While there does not seem to be a Senator who is willing to admit to opposing the provision, the longshoremen's labor union is more than happy to take credit for gutting the provision. Last month the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, in their newsletter, claimed credit for killing the provision. They stated: Congress will return after the election in a ``lame duck'' session and work through part of November and December. 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 they have, as we have seen today by the objection to this very commonsense measure. The unions are not stopping at just fighting legislation that I am proposing here to keep serious felons out of our port workforce. They are gearing up to mount a legal battle against the proposed regulations as well. In response to a Wall Street Journal editorial on the subject, the union stated that the proposed regulations were ``double jeopardy'' and ``unconstitutional.'' This is a clear indication that they have a legal challenge in mind. It seems clear now that once the regulations become final, they are going to take the Department of Homeland Security to court and that the proposed regulations are going to be bogged down in lengthy legal battles likely for years. The consequence will be that as we continue to fight this global war on terror, America's ports will be staffed by serious felons. Some may be tempted to come to the defense of the longshoremen with various so- called concerns: These individuals have paid their debt to society; barring these individuals is going to gut our port workforce; or that the crimes listed are somehow not related to homeland security. These concerns are 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 don't agree with is that we should give them 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. Second, I have heard that barring these individuals will empty the ranks of the port workforce. The facts don't bear this out. When the Department of Homeland Security issued nearly 350,000 ID cards for HAZMAT truckdrivers and subjected them to the same background check as I propose putting in the law, only 3,100 were disapproved, less than 1 percent. The workforce in the United States is elastic enough that we can pick up the few thousand longshoremen jobs opening up because the criminals in the port workforce had to be fired. Finally, some are maintaining these are not serious crimes. I want someone to come down here and tell me which individuals he wants working at his local port--murderers, extortionists, drug dealers, arsonists, document forgers? I want to hear the rationale for stopping this important bill. The list that the Transportation Security Agency came up with is a list of serious felons who represent a serious threat. It is going to keep these dangerous criminals out of our ports. The bottom line is this: This bill applies nearly the same protections to seaports that already applies to our airports. It is a regime that has been successful. It will make our ports safer by keeping individuals who have shown a willingness to break the law out of our ports. This is very important. We can spend all the money in our treasury trying to screen cargo, and we have appropriated or approved a whole lot of money to secure our ports. But if we don't screen the people who work at our ports, we cannot expect to have effective port security. It is very unfortunate today that my Democratic colleague has taken this commonsense provision and objected to its consideration.

Mr. DeMINT. That is a good thing because I had finished my talk. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Jeff Sinclair, an outstanding Scoutmaster in the State of Wisconsin who passed away October 25, 2006, after a brave battle with cancer. Jeff's involvement with the Boy Scouts began in 1998, when he became a leader of St. Dominic's Cub Scout Pack 119. Beginning in 2001, he served as Scoutmaster for St. John Vianney's Boy Scout Troop 71, and despite his illness, he continued leading the group until his death. During his tenure as Scoutmaster, Jeff mentored over 14 percent of his Scouts--including both of his sons--to receive the Eagle Award, the highest rank attainable within the Boy Scouts. This is a stark contrast to the national average of 4 percent of Scouts who receive the award. Jeff's remarkable dedication and leadership to the group has earned him numerous awards and commendations, and I believe he deserves our recognition as well. Jeff was also accepted as a member of the Boy Scout prestigious Order of the Arrow Honor Society, and his sons followed in his footsteps to attain the distinction. Clearly, not only did Jeff commit himself to serving others, but he inspired those around him to do the same. Born on March 9, 1960, in Milwaukee to Dr. Eugene and Jean Sinclair, Jeff was an accomplished individual who dedicated himself to helping others. In 1983 he earned a business degree from Marquette University, and for the next several years, he used his skills and expertise to serve the State of Wisconsin through the Department of Revenue. While Jeff was successful and well regarded in his career and throughout Boy Scouts, his greatest priorities were his family and his faith. A loving husband to wife Kathy and a dedicated father to four children--Matt, Andy, Maggie and Emma--Jeff found great joy in encouraging and supporting their endeavors. In addition to his devoted involvement with his sons' Boy Scout troop, Jeff often assisted with his daughters' soccer teams. He was also very active in his home parish, St. Dominic's. On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I want to remember Jeff Sinclair for his dedication to his family, church, and community. Undoubtedly, he was a great friend, mentor, and source of joy to countless individuals throughout the years, and he will be missed. Mr. President, please join me in offering deepest sympathy to his wife, children, and parents. May they find peace and comfort knowing that Jeff's legacy of serving, teaching, and empowering others will last far into the future that this world is a better place because of him.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, reserving the right to object, let me say that I strongly support this legislation that will maintain and improve the quality of life for our military personnel. I believe that the Senator from Texas, the chairwoman of the subcommittee, has done an excellent job with the bill. I am also pleased that the Senator from Texas obviously feels there is still time to conference this bill, since the House committee has been saying in the newspapers that there is not enough time. I agree with Senator Hutchison that if we appointed conferees today, with some hard work, this bill could get finished. I, also, add that the Senator from Texas is committed to keeping this bill clean in conference, which we greatly appreciate. I agree with her that we are at war, but those of us who sent our troops to war should not be back home selling out the country for which they are fighting. It is my understanding that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has refused to make the assurances that we need to keep this bill clean in conference and, therefore, if I consent to letting this bill go to conference, there is a risk that it will return to the Senate as a foot-tall Omnibus appropriations bill, with thousands of earmarks in an unamendable form. Therefore, Madam President, I object.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, the leader then told me he wanted to talk with Senator Hutchison and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee before he responded to the letter. Senator Hutchison agreed to the parameters of the letter. The chairman of the committee, however, felt that he could not agree to the request we made in the letter. Unfortunately, that means the Military Construction bill will have to wait until next year. I take my colleague from Texas at her word when she says she will keep the bill clean. I know she will keep the bill clean. However, when the chairman of the committee says he will not make such a commitment, I must take him at his word as well. I believe the veterans and military projects need to be funded and should not be used as a vehicle for unrelated, wasteful earmarks. Let me explain how we got to this point. In the November 7 elections, one of the top issues for the voters was wasteful spending. While we have done some things to control taxes and spending, we have not done nearly enough, and the voters are right. Earmarks have gone up in numbers every year and are now at an all-time high. If this does not end, we will never regain the trust of the American people. When the military construction and veterans spending bill passed the Senate, I strongly supported it. However, it was clear that the intent was to use the bill as a shell to carry the Omnibus appropriations bill and other add-ons. Because the scope of the conference rules has become so relaxed, the conferees, under our rules, would have the ability to put into the bill any projects they please, with no opportunity for us to amend them or even vote, except on final passage of the bill, which would be overwhelmingly approved. The conference process has rendered the Senate floor consideration of bills almost irrelevant. Nothing we do in this Chamber matters until a bill goes to conference. When a bill goes to conference, conferees may remove provisions that are in both the House and the Senate bills, even if they were approved by both Houses overwhelmingly. Conferees may add provisions that are unrelated to either bill. Through this process, a clean Military Construction bill could grow into a foot-tall Omnibus appropriations bill, with thousands of earmarks and wasteful spending. The process is flawed, and it cannot continue this way. When a bill comes back that funds the entire Government and we are forced to vote for the bill or shut down the Government, that bill is going to pass. This means that if I consent to letting this bill go to conference, I am essentially consenting to enact whatever the conferees want to insert in the bill unamended. We put a lot of trust in our conferees, and all I was asking was for an understanding from the committee that we know, at least in general, where the conference will be headed. I have not been able to get this commitment. I was given no information and no assurances. Therefore, I am compelled to do what I think is right to protect the taxpayers and to provide integrity and accountability in the spending process. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, over the last several weeks, I have made it clear that I believe this bill, which is a good bill, needs to stay clean of additional appropriations and earmarks if it is to go to conference. I was asked by the members of the Senate steering committee to protect their interests in keeping these appropriations bills clean. I informed the leader that the steering committee did not believe it was wise to send a bill to conference without an understanding of what the conference agreement would look like. I have made it clear that all we want is a commitment from the leadership and the Appropriations Committee that this is what will happen. I am not looking for anything extraordinary, a unanimous consent agreement or anything like that. We would be satisfied with a commitment from the chairman of the committee or the leadership that this is what will happen. At one point, it appeared that we had such an agreement. Leader Frist asked me to put on paper what our specific concerns were to avoid any confusion. I did so. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter from myself, Senator Coburn, and Senator Inhofe be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. If the Senator from Texas would allow me to discuss with her our conversation with Leader Frist. As we talked about earlier today, both the Senator from Texas, myself, and I believe the entire Senate and Congress want this bill to pass. Senator Hutchison and myself have had the opportunity to meet with Leader Frist to talk about the importance of passing this bill, as well as the importance of not adding additional appropriations and additional earmarks which were not part of the Senate or the House version of this bill or were not part of the President's budget. If I could ask the Senator, is it her understanding that it is our general agreement and also leadership's that this bill will be kept to the basic bills which have been passed by the House and Senate and that it will return to the Senate floor as a bill that we have discussed with Leader Frist?

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator for her openness and tenacity in helping to get the agreements we need to keep this bill clean and focused on the needs of our military. I do not object.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6326, which was received from the House.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, November 15, 2006, following the first vote of the day, the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold a business meeting to consider the following agenda: Alex Beehler to be Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 15, 2006, at 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., to receive testimony on the current situation and U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 3 p.m. in SD-430.

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation that I am introducing today along with the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama. At this time of year, with much bitter partisanship, I really am pleased to work with Senator Obama for something that we think is important to the country. The Education Opportunity Act is a bill that would significantly expand college-level opportunities for low-income high school students and teach these students that success in school can mean success in life. In the fast-paced, technologically advanced global economy of the 21st century, old distinctions between high school and college are becoming obsolete. For our students to succeed in tomorrow's workplace, we must be innovative and allow more choices of study today. As we look toward reauthorizing No Child Left Behind, I believe it is important to examine what has worked and where students are still falling between the cracks. While we have expanded advanced placement classes, what we call AP classes, through the President's Advanced Placement Incentives Program, I believe we are missing another vital avenue to increase college-level opportunities for low-income students. That is why I am proud to work together with Senator Obama to establish education opportunity grants for high school students. Our bill is similar to the Federal Pell grant program, which funds need-based aid that does not have to be repaid by the students. These grants could be made available for classes at community colleges or universities that would admit a high school student to enroll in classes. These grant scholarships will help keep our high school students in school by raising their expectations and showing them that they can do college-level work. They could also accumulate college- level credits while still in high school. Our national dropout rate is at record highs, and it is on the rise. In my own home State of South Carolina, high school students are dropping out at an alarming rate, with half of all students failing to complete high school in 4 years. It is no secret that most of these at- risk students are from low-income families. Currently, there are only two ways high school students can gain college credit. They either take the AP classes at high school or participate in dual enrollment programs. Some high schools, particularly those with a high percentage of low-income students, are not able to offer advanced placement classes, and students are required to forgo college classes that they might want to take because their families can't afford to foot the bill. The result is that students with great promise who happen to come from disadvantaged families lose interest in a school that does not offer classes tailored to their talents and interests. Senator Obama and I believe if we expose students to the hundreds of classes available at their local colleges, some of which are listed on the chart behind me, many students who are not excited about high school world history classes will, instead, discover that they are interested in computer science or marketing and can learn a skill that they can see will directly apply to a future job. Make no mistake, traditional classes in biology, English, and history are important. But if a student drops out because they don't have the flexibility to also pursue more nontraditional avenues, those classes do not do them any good. Education opportunity grants are a cost-effective way to educate students by utilizing the preexisting infrastructure already available at local colleges. I believe this will show many students that a college degree is attainable and that they will be better prepared to start college or enter the workforce with marketable skills as a high school graduate. As I mentioned before, I believe it is critical that we do a better job accommodating the needs of all our students and continue to create opportunities for each young person to learn in ways that make sense to them and have direct application to their goals in life. This legislation is one more valuable option for our educational system to empower students and parents with choices and the ability to follow an educational path that meets their individual needs. It is time we stopped forcing our kids to fit our educational system and, instead, force our educational system to fit our kids. That is the only way that success in school will mean success in life. I thank Senator Obama and his great staff for working with my office on this important legislation, and I look forward to working with the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, and the Senator from Massachusetts, Ranking Member Kennedy, to make this legislation a reality. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation that I am introducing today along with the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama. At this time of year, with much bitter partisanship, I really am pleased to work with Senator Obama for something that we think is important to the country. The Education Opportunity Act is a bill that would significantly expand college-level opportunities for low-income high school students and teach these students that success in school can mean success in life. In the fast-paced, technologically advanced global economy of the 21st century, old distinctions between high school and college are becoming obsolete. For our students to succeed in tomorrow's workplace, we must be innovative and allow more choices of study today. As we look toward reauthorizing No Child Left Behind, I believe it is important to examine what has worked and where students are still falling between the cracks. While we have expanded advanced placement classes, what we call AP classes, through the President's Advanced Placement Incentives Program, I believe we are missing another vital avenue to increase college-level opportunities for low-income students. That is why I am proud to work together with Senator Obama to establish education opportunity grants for high school students. Our bill is similar to the Federal Pell grant program, which funds need-based aid that does not have to be repaid by the students. These grants could be made available for classes at community colleges or universities that would admit a high school student to enroll in classes. These grant scholarships will help keep our high school students in school by raising their expectations and showing them that they can do college-level work. They could also accumulate college- level credits while still in high school. Our national dropout rate is at record highs, and it is on the rise. In my own home State of South Carolina, high school students are dropping out at an alarming rate, with half of all students failing to complete high school in 4 years. It is no secret that most of these at- risk students are from low-income families. Currently, there are only two ways high school students can gain college credit. They either take the AP classes at high school or participate in dual enrollment programs. Some high schools, particularly those with a high percentage of low-income students, are not able to offer advanced placement classes, and students are required to forgo college classes that they might want to take because their families can't afford to foot the bill. The result is that students with great promise who happen to come from disadvantaged families lose interest in a school that does not offer classes tailored to their talents and interests. Senator Obama and I believe if we expose students to the hundreds of classes available at their local colleges, some of which are listed on the chart behind me, many students who are not excited about high school world history classes will, instead, discover that they are interested in computer science or marketing and can learn a skill that they can see will directly apply to a future job. Make no mistake, traditional classes in biology, English, and history are important. But if a student drops out because they don't have the flexibility to also pursue more nontraditional avenues, those classes do not do them any good. Education opportunity grants are a cost-effective way to educate students by utilizing the preexisting infrastructure already available at local colleges. I believe this will show many students that a college degree is attainable and that they will be better prepared to start college or enter the workforce with marketable skills as a high school graduate. As I mentioned before, I believe it is critical that we do a better job accommodating the needs of all our students and continue to create opportunities for each young person to learn in ways that make sense to them and have direct application to their goals in life. This legislation is one more valuable option for our educational system to empower students and parents with choices and the ability to follow an educational path that meets their individual needs. It is time we stopped forcing our kids to fit our educational system and, instead, force our educational system to fit our kids. That is the only way that success in school will mean success in life. I thank Senator Obama and his great staff for working with my office on this important legislation, and I look forward to working with the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, and the Senator from Massachusetts, Ranking Member Kennedy, to make this legislation a reality. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.