Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. DeMINT related to the introduction of S. 3995 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements On Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask to speak for 7 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the years of dedicated service that William Walter Wilkins, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, has given to the Federal judiciary. Hailing from my hometown of Greenville, SC, his contributions to South Carolina and our Nation are immeasurable. Chief Judge Wilkins began his public service in 1967 as an officer in the U.S. Army, eventually earning the rank of colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves. Upon his honorable discharge from the Army, Chief Judge Wilkins worked as a law clerk for the Honorable Clement F. Haynsworth, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit until 1970, then going on to become a legal assistant for the late Senator Strom Thurmond. And Senator Thurmond got it exactly right when he called Chief Judge Wilkins ``a man of character and unquestionable integrity.'' While in private practice, Chief Judge Wilkins was elected as the first Republican Solicitor for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit since Reconstruction, a post that showcased his extensive knowledge and mastery of the legal profession. In 1981, newly elected President Ronald Reagan used his first Presidential appointment to nominate Chief Judge Wilkins to the position of the U.S. District Judge for the District of South Carolina. Chief Judge Wilkins was confirmed by this body on July 20, 1981 and received his commission on July 22, 1981. In 1985, President Reagan appointed Chief Judge Wilkins to be the first Chair of the United States Sentencing Commission, where he was given the task of creating guidelines for the sentencing of Federal defendants. He served in this capacity until 1994. During that time, he was also appointed to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he has served as Chief Judge since 2003. Chief Judge Wilkins is a nationally recognized jurist and is known for this scholarship, sharp wit, and unyielding allegiance to the rule of law. Not only is the State of South Carolina honored to be the home of a man of his integrity, but the United States is privileged to have such a distinguished jurist defending our American legal system. I commend Chief Judge Wilkins for his 25 years of public service to the United States.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, we have the opportunity to correct a wrong. An important bill was blocked. I would like, as we consider this Family Prosperity Act this morning, to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 562, H.R. 5970, which is the Death Tax Repeal Act, which we call the Family Prosperity Act. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, and a motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. DeMINT. Yes, I am aware. And I am aware that all of the bills and legislation that my colleague mentioned have majority support in the Senate. But by using procedural blocking techniques, the Democrats have kept these from coming to a vote, or even debated in some cases. But, again, I am confident the American people, as they focus on what we have been doing--and I realize our Democratic colleagues produced their commercials to call us a do-nothing Congress several months ago, so it has become very important for them in the last days of this Congress to block everything that they can. But we have several important pieces of legislation this week related to the security of this country that we need to pass, and we are going to have the opportunity in a few minutes to hopefully get unanimous consent to pass the Family Prosperity Act, to give people a raise in the minimum wage, to pass these tax extenders, and to create a compromise on this death tax, which is so immoral and hurts so many families.

Mr. DeMINT. Yes.

Mr. DeMINT. I am glad the Senator from Texas brought that up because this morning our distinguished colleague from New Mexico was talking about how Republicans have done nothing significant to lower health insurance costs when, in fact, the small business health plan would have done just that. I was a small businessman for many years. Health care is one of the highest expenses we had. The chance to pool together with small businesses all over the country to buy insurance, just like large companies can do, is a commonsense measure that should have been passed in the Senate, yet was blocked by our colleagues.

Mr. DeMINT. Yes.

Mr. DeMINT. The Senator from Texas knows as well as I do that this has become the pattern of our Democratic colleagues: to purposely block important legislation and then attempt to come down and blame Republicans or blame the President when it doesn't actually get done. I am excited, as the election nears, that the American people are much smarter than that. They are going to clearly see through those attempts. These important things which need to be done, many of which we have been able to accomplish despite Democratic obstruction, are still being blocked by our Democratic colleagues.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, we see again a bill that has been debated and considered for many months, a bill on which a press conference was held this very day saying we need to pass a major portion of it. Yet at every turn there is blocking. I would like to take a few minutes--and if the Presiding Officer would let me know when I have 5 minutes left--to talk about one of the provisions of the Family Prosperity Act. My friends on the other side of the aisle are holding up legislation that would prevent an enormous increase in the death tax on everyday Americans. I will talk more about this chart, but Democrats widely claim that the death tax impacts only a few of the wealthiest Americans. The truth is, the only reason the death tax doesn't affect more hard-working Americans today is that it currently--the Republicans have passed temporary legislation that is phasing out the death tax, as we can se on this chart through 2010. And we have done this despite Democratic obstruction. But as you can see from this chart, if the Democrats have their way, a huge number of American families will be in the death tax death grip in 2011. Minority Whip Durbin, my colleague from Illinois, said this about the death tax: How many families will benefit if the estate tax is repealed? Each year in America, a Nation of 300 million: only 8,200 families. You have to search long and hard to find them. These families are so well off, who have done so well in this great Nation, who have benefited from this democracy and the blessings of liberty, who have enjoyed a comfortable life because of their prosperity, who now have taken millions of dollars to hire the most effective lobbyists in Washington, DC to push this outrageous special interest legislation, the fattest of cats in America will get a great bowl of tax cuts, tax cuts on the estate tax. Senator Durbin argues against full repeal of the death tax, but we are not arguing for full repeal of the death tax. Our legislation would simply prevent an enormous increase in the death tax, while Senator Durbin is arguing that we should let the death tax increase in 2011 to a top rate of 60 percent. That is not taxing, it is taking. No, in fact, it is stealing. Senator Durbin also argues that the death tax only affects 8,200 families. The truth is, the death tax doesn't affect 8,200 family members who may die; it affects millions of family members still living who are left to deal with Uncle Sam's sticky fingers. Let's take a look for a minute at homes in Senator Durbin's State. Keep in mind, in 2011, if Senator Durbin has his way, all estates of $1 million or more will be taxed at a very high rate. He says: You will have to search long and hard for these families. But look at these homes in Chicago that he says are owned by the fattest cats. These are very modest and some would consider lower scale homes, all valued at over $1 million today. Are these the wealthiest Americans? If you look at Chicago, right now over 36,000 homes in urban areas would be affected by the 2011 death tax. But if you move ahead to 2011 and look at the number of homes in the Chicago area that will be affected by the death tax, the Democratic death tax increase, you are looking at more than 143,000 homes. You don't have to look long and hard to find that many houses. What about other cities? By 2011, when the death tax is raised to the Democrats' level that they want, if you look around the country, over 500,000 in New York City, over 200,000 in Boston, over 250,000 in Newark. If you go to Atlanta, 26,000; Chicago, as I said, 143,000; San Francisco, over a quarter of a million; Los Angeles, 812,000. You don't have to look long and hard to find these homes. The Census reports that just over 1 million homes in 2004 were subject to the death tax at the Democrats' level of 2011. In 2005, that number reached 1.4 million, over a 40-percent increase. As properties continue to appreciate, that number will continue to increase year after year, subjecting more and more Americans to the Democratic death tax. If you look at 2005, under the levels that will happen in 2011, there has been a 143-percent increase in the number of homes that will be affected, just in 2 years, based on the Democratic death tax. Let's talk about some farms. Let's look at who these families are who Senator Durbin claims have enjoyed a comfortable life--the ``fat cats'' as he calls them. There are nearly 30,000 farms in Illinois alone, many of them owned by families whose comfortable life has made them a target of Senator Durbin's death tax should we not vote to block the impending tax increase. Based on 2002 Illinois Farm Bureau figures, over one- fourth--26.7 percent--of all Illinois farms would currently be subject to the death tax at Senator Durbin's rate of taxes in 2011. In 2011, you will have about 30,000 Illinois farms, or over 40 percent of all farms will likely be subject to the death tax. When we fail to prevent the 2011 Durbin death tax increase, it will not be hard to find almost one-half of Illinois' farms. If you take the USDA figures, the Department of Agriculture, they say that over half of the farms in Illinois will be subject to the death tax in 2011 if Senator Durbin gets his way. How many farms will be eligible if hit by the Democratic death tax increase in 2011? Well, again, the fat cats we are talking about, if you look at Arkansas, you have nearly 5,000; Missouri, 9,200; Iowa, nearly 20,000 farms; South Dakota, 5,500; in California, 20,000. Lots of family farms are going to be affected by the Democratic tax increase. Let's talk about small businesses, really the backbone of the American economy. Who are these--to quote Senator Durbin--``the fattest of cats who have taken millions of dollars to hire the most effective lobbyists in Washington, DC to push this''--as he calls it-- ``outrageous special interest legislation.'' Again, his numbers are somewhat questionable. The National Federation of Independent Business reports that 1.4 million small businesses would currently be subject to Durbin's tax increase in 2011 if the Democrats get their way. And by 2011, an additional 1.2 million will be eligible for the tax. A vote against the Republican legislation to reform the death tax is a vote to increase the death tax on 2.6 million small businesses. Are these 2.6 million hard-working small business owners and employers the fattest of cats? Small businesses that we all use every day will be affected. Let's take a closer look at some of the specific examples of these family farms, family homes, and family-owned businesses if the death tax is implemented the way the Democrats want. I will use one. The Greens, the Green family--Greens Printers. For 97 years, Janet Green and her family have owned and operated Greens Printers, Inc., in Long Beach, CA. Her company operates a sheet-fed, four-color printing plant with full bindery and electronic capabilities. The family wants to remain in business for many years to come. The fact that they have to pay a ridiculous insurance premium for the sole purpose of paying a tax when they die is not only absurd, it is antibusiness. However, the future of Greens Printers is being threatened by the death tax. Janet's company cannot afford to pay an enormous life insurance cost that would help pay for the death tax when her parents need to pass on the business. Janet says: Because we are a third generation printing facility, we have already paid the estate tax in the early 1970's. Both of my parents are well into their seventies and not insurable because of ill health and the astronomical cost associated to do so. At roughly $100,000 a year [for this insurance policy], we cannot afford it. She says: Let my employees keep their jobs and let us maintain the risk of owning the business to keep them employed. She is reminding us it is not just the family that is affected, but it is everyone who works for these businesses who are ruined by this death tax. Over the years, Green has tried not only to be successful in generating profits, but also successful at being a good neighbor. She does this by supplying 20 people in the community with good jobs and benefits, and by building lasting relationships with employees that allow the company to plan for future growth and the workers to enjoy a stable income and fulfilling livelihood. Her family wants to keep Greens Printers even after she is gone. We have 16 grandchildren who would love to take over the company and see it grow someday. She asked us in Congress: Does Congress really think that we small, family-owned businesses out here have hundreds of thousands of dollars tucked away for estate taxes? Any money we make we put right back into the business by purchasing new equipment and hiring more employees. Let's look at another business, the Barthle Brothers Ranch, in Florida. These are some more fat cats, as Senator Durbin would call them. Larry, Mark, and Randy Barthle are brothers who share a similar story with many ranchers around the country. They are trying to maintain the family ranch their father built in the early 1930s so they can pass it on to future generations. The ranch has received national recognition for its environmental stewardship practices that protect and promote the environment and wildlife. The family is dedicated to youth development to encourage future generations of ranchers to care for resources responsibly. Larry Barthle says: Our family was first struck by the Death Tax in the early 1970s when both my grandfather and uncle passed away within a short period of each other. We had to sell 1,200 acres of the ranch. Every penny went to pay taxes assessed to us and we still had to take out a loan for the balance. Not one cent was used for anything except taxes. After such a devastating blow, it was my father's lifelong goal to be able to pass along the ranch to his kids without being hit by the Death Tax. He was successful at the time of his death because he was able to make the transfers to my mother. We currently have our ranch set up [in all kinds of legal frameworks in order to try to get it through the death of another owner.] This is not fair to American families and businesses. Just one more quick example here, Mt. Pulaski Products. Scott and Kathryn Steinfort operate the family-owned Mt. Pulaski Products, Inc., in a small town in Illinois that bears the company name. It has been in business since 1951. They sell products that are absorbents and abrasives. For decades, the family has worked to build a successful business, which employs over 44 citizens there in Mt. Pulaski. The Steinforts also are known for their community service, dedicated to serving the community. They have two sons. Both are serving in Iraq, both with engineering degrees. While many other engineering graduates are making big salaries, they serve our country. Someday they would like to join the company business, but the death tax looms over the family business. Without wealth, the Steinforts may be forced to sell the business to pay for the death tax, not only taking from future generations but possibly putting 40 families out of work. The say: My wife and I have life insurance to cover these taxes, but as we age our premiums are marching steadily higher. Combined with not knowing how much we need to plan for in taxes and fees, the potential costs ultimately point to only one path: sale or liquidation of our plants to pay our tax burdens. I have a lot more here that we could talk about, but I will put up one more chart. The Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, has told the American people that only 8,200 American families are affected by the death tax. The only reason that is today is because the Republicans have overcome Democratic obstruction and at least temporarily reduced the death tax. If the Democrats get their way, the tax on the American family will reach over 3.3 million children and grandchildren of those who die in the 10 years after 2011. Over the next generation, millions of children and grandchildren and workers in small businesses and farms will be affected. I ask all my colleagues, what is the difference between these numbers? The difference is the truth. We have been misled, that this tax is about the wealthiest of Americans. Whereas, as we have seen today, in the homes and the farms, the small businesses, this tax is immoral. It steals from the American people, the hard-working families who put together some savings to pass along to the next generation. It is not to the fat cats and their lobbyists. It is to the average Americans, who are doing what we expect them to do, and that is to work and to save and to build a better future. Today we have seen again that the opportunity to compromise and at least reduce these taxes was blocked again by our Democratic colleagues. Yet they come to this floor every day and ask why we are not doing something for the cost of living of the American people, to help improve their future. I think the reason for this is obvious. Senator Cornyn brought it up a minute ago. The Democratic strategy is to block what needs to be done and then try to blame someone else when it does not get done. The American people are smarter than that and they will see the difference. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. Yes.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, earlier this year Republicans put together one of the most important bills we have considered, and Republicans asked for a vote on that important bill we call the Family Prosperity Act. Indeed, it does deal with the prosperity, the economic well-being, the cost of living for every American family. It contains three very important measures and all enjoy majority support in the Senate. One was permanent death tax relief, another was the extension of very important expiring tax provisions, and a minimum wage increase of more than 40 percent. The bill represents a true bipartisan compromise. Yet it met unified Democratic obstruction that prevented it from receiving an up-or-down vote. I do not think I have ever seen a vote that has so clearly demonstrated Democrats' willingness to turn their backs on American families in order to score political points. I believe Americans understand that Republicans worked hard to reach a true compromise that would raise the standard of living for all American families. I think they will remember that after years of rhetoric, Democrats proved they were all talk and no action. For years Republicans, along with many Democrats, have worked for permanent death tax relief because it is an immoral double-tax that punishes death and savings. As the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, said when she was running for office in the year 2000: [Y]ou ought to be able to leave your land and the bulk of your fortunes to your children and not the government. Other Democrats have supported death tax relief in the past, including Senators Wyden, Bayh, Pryor, Landrieu, and Cantwell. Even the minority leader, Senator Reid, has said he is for ``fixing the estate tax.'' Yet when it came time to vote, they joined their fellow Democrats to block death tax relief. The Family Prosperity Act also extends several important tax relief provisions that are set to expire in October to extend several critical relief measures, including State and local sales tax deductions, research and development tax credits, college tuition deductions, work opportunity tax credits, welfare-to-work tax credit, depreciation for restaurants, timber capital gains, teacher classroom expense deductions. These tax relief provisions enjoyed broad bipartisan support and need to be renewed to keep our economy growing. Instead, in August, Democrats obstructed these items and essentially voted to raise the cost of living for American families. Additionally, the Family Prosperity Act contained a longtime priority for Senate Democrats, a 40-percent increase in the minimum wage. I must make it clear that I personally oppose a minimum wage increase, as do many of my Republican colleagues. Economists agree that raising the minimum wage prices people with low skills out of the job market and keeps them from getting a job that ultimately pays higher wages. Yet Republicans such as myself are willing to vote for this true compromise bill. Unfortunately, Democrats chose election-year partisan obstruction instead of lowering the cost of living for American families. However, today we can change this. We are nearing the end of the 109th Congress, and we have debated these issues over and over. We now have one final opportunity to get this right and pass this bill to secure America's prosperity. In fact, I understand that some Democrats just gave a press conference earlier today urging the passage of the tax relief extensions in this Family Prosperity Act. Well, they are about to have their chance. The Democrats now have one final opportunity to either do what is right for American families and lower the cost of living or they can choose to continue their partisan political games of blocking American priorities so they can try to blame Republicans as a do-nothing Congress.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 minutes in morning business.

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I just had the unfortunate experience of being trapped in the Presiding Officer's chair as some of my Democratic colleagues presented a sad scenario of how Republicans had not taken up an important bill that would continue important tax credits for Americans and American businesses. Unfortunately, they failed to admit that we all had a chance to vote on that bill only a couple of weeks ago when Republicans, attempting to work with Democrats, brought all of these ``tax extenders,'' as we call them, to the floor, along with the increase in the minimum wage, which our Democratic colleagues had spoken so often for, and a reform of the death tax, a compromise plan to tax only the larger estates in this country. We put this together in order to try to move some business through the Senate--a very important piece of legislation that we called the Family Prosperity Act because, indeed, that is exactly what it was. All of us were amazed at how our Democratic colleagues came to the floor and found one excuse after another why we could not vote for this important piece of legislation that would have given the tax credits for schoolteachers who buy supplies, it would have given some breaks to middle-class families who are faced with the death tax on their farm or family business, and it certainly would have given low and minimum wage workers the increase that we talked about for years. Yet the Democrats, which has been their form for month after month--in fact, during my entire time here in the Senate--when we bring something important to this floor, the Democrats block it. Then, as they did today, they come down and attempt to blame Republicans for the bill not getting passed. I think it is important for the American people to know the truth, particularly as we head toward elections. The tax credits which are so important to America were brought to the floor by the Republicans, with a good compromise package, with an honest attempt to work with Democrats on several important issues. The Democrats to a person unanimously voted against this bill. Now they are here trying to blame Republicans. I think it is important that we set the record straight. I intend to be a part of doing that as we try to end this session in a productive way next week. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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 thank my colleagues for working with me on this important amendment. The amendment that I offered and which is included in the managers' package codifies the current proposed regulations governing the issuance of transportation worker identification credentials--often known as TWIC cards. My amendment would codify in statute a number of offenses which would bar individuals from receiving TWIC cards if they have been convicted, or found not guilty by reason of insanity, of a number of particularly heinous offenses. The amendment would also bar individuals from holding TWIC cards if they have been convicted of or found not guilty by reason of insanity within the last 7 years or have been incarcerated in the preceding 5 years for certain other offenses. This amendment will provide the Nation with assurances that the hard-working men and women at our ports are trustworthy. It is my understanding that this language will be the Senate position in conference and that my colleagues will fight to protect this language and to ensure that the conference report contains the DeMint amendment. I am particularly pleased to hear that Cochairman Inouye has agreed to fight for this amendment in conference. Is that understanding correct?

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I said yesterday I am thankful to be part of the Republican majority that understands that September 11, 2001, changed the way that we must look at the world. Republicans are committed to taking action and not just talking about making America safer. We must track, capture, and eliminate our terrorist enemies before they attack us. We must provide the President and our military with every legal tool available to fight this war against Islamic extremists, and we must secure our homeland by securing our borders and ports. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party does not seem to understand the true threat that we face with Islamic extremists. Instead, Senate Democrats continue to prove that they are dangerously naive about the grave danger of global terrorism. Radical Islamic jihadists have made no secret of their goal, which is the complete subjugation of the world to their extreme form of Islamic nationalism. Osama bin Laden said the attacks of 9/11 were ``an unparalleled and magnificent feat of valor'' and ``a great step toward the unity of Muslims.'' According to the al-Qaida charter: There will be continuing enmity until everybody believes in Allah. We will not meet [the enemy] halfway, and there will be no room for dialog with them. The Iranian President has called for a world ``without the United States and Zionism,'' saying that the West's ``doomed destiny will be annihilation, misfortune, and abjectness,'' and telling other nations that in order to have good relations with Iran, they must ``bow down before the greatness of the Iranian nation and surrender.'' Horrendous attacks in India, Madrid, London, as well as recent arrests in Canada, Miami, and the foiled London airplane plot have shown that terrorists and their state sponsors have the determination to back up their rhetoric with action. President Bush and my Republican colleagues have proved that we understand the nature of the enemy we are facing and that we must be just as determined as they are. Let's be clear. Republicans are not the ones fighting to preserve the status quo. Preserving the status quo is what we did for 8 long years under the Clinton administration--simply responding with a law enforcement mindset while Islamic extremists attacked us and built and financed their worldwide network of terror. Now Democrats would have us return to the Clinton status quo--a pre- September 11, head-in-the-sand philosophy of ``don't listen, don't track, don't challenge.'' Republicans understand the world changed on September 11 and that we are fighting a dynamic and committed enemy. As we have responded to terrorists, they have adjusted their tactics, and we are continually evaluating and adapting our strategy to meet this evolving threat. If we don't show the resolve to defeat radical Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon, we will never defeat them anywhere. No one understands the stakes better than the terrorists. That is why there is no in-between choice in Iraq. Either we cut and run and allow it to become a safe haven for terrorism and staging grounds for future attacks or we stay until victory over the terrorists is achieved and Iraq is a stable partner in democracy. Republicans have proved that we will do what it takes to secure our homeland from all enemies. We are committed to completing our current mission in Iraq and Afghanistan with victory and honor and to create a new generation of freedom and security, of peace and prosperity, for America and the world. The unfortunate truth is that when it comes to securing America's homeland, the Democrats are dangerously naive. They think if we pull out of Iraq, the terrorists will leave us alone. They have abandoned those in their own party who dare to disagree with the most radical liberals of the far left. Democrats, with the help of their misguided allies, such as media outlets like the New York Times, have signaled to the terrorists that America is tired, discouraged, and ready to quit, encouraging the terrorists to expand their attacks around the world. Not content to simply heckle from the sidelines, Democrats have actively fought to block the tools that are critical to stopping future attacks. In fact, Senate Democrats united this week in opposition to the terrorist surveillance program, proposing an amendment to the port security bill that denounces this program that has saved American lives. Just last Thursday, Democrats showed their continued tendency to flip-flop when they issued a media statement outlining their latest security agenda, pledging to ``work to . . . ensure our intelligence agencies have the tools they need to defeat the terrorists.'' Then, 1 short hour later, they again played procedural games to block the Judiciary Committee from further consideration of the National Security Surveillance Act of 2006. The Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, got it right when he said: It's little wonder that Democrats have a credibility gap with the American people on the issue of national security. Saying one thing [and then] doing another . . . doesn't help our efforts to win this war. This week, Senate Democrats continued to prove they are willing to put politics ahead of the security and safety of American families by trying to kill the port security bill with partisan amendments. The Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, openly admitted the Democratic strategy of playing politics with national security. Yesterday, Congress Daily reported Senator Schumer ``conceded Democrats were seeking to score political points'' and quoted my Democratic colleague saying: ``This is politics at its very best.'' I believe the American people have a different view of the partisan games the Senate Democrats are playing. I think they believe that this is politics at its very worst. If Democrats spent half as much time fighting terrorists as they do this administration, America would win this war a lot faster. Democrats claim to be the ones listening to the American people, but, unfortunately, they are just posturing to win an election. Mr. President, I invite my Democratic colleagues to stop these political games and to join us in helping to win this war on terror and securing America's homeland. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I allowed the amendment to be read because our critics have already suggested that this amendment would include minor offenses. I will challenge critics of this bill to point out which of these felonies they would like transportation workers in our ports to be able to commit. It makes absolutely no sense for us to spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars as a nation to protect the security of our airports and our ports if we allow the workers who are using this scanning equipment for these inspections to be of a criminal nature. I thank the manager for allowing me to offer this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today, obviously, in support of amendment No. 4970 which we will distribute in a moment. The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 required the Transportation Security Agency, which we call TSA, to develop a biometric security card for port workers to limit access to sensitive areas within a seaport. To satisfy this law, TSA is developing a transportation worker identification credential which we call a TWIC card. The law requires that the Secretary of Homeland Security issue a card to an individual requesting one unless determination can be made that they pose a terrorism threat. However, it should trouble Americans that the law specifically allows those who have been convicted of a felony more than 7 years prior to their application or have been released from incarceration 5 years prior to their application to be eligible for a TWIC card. This standard is too lax and must be strengthened. DHS officials need clear rules that prevent those convicted of serious felonies from obtaining access to our secure port areas. My amendment does just that. It takes the standards the TSA uses for airport workers with access to secure areas and applies them to maritime port workers. Let me make that clear. The exact same standards that are used in our airports for workers are in this amendment to apply to transportation workers at our port. Just like the TSA airport safety regulations, my amendment automatically bars those convicted of serious felonies, which are listed in this amendment, including crimes of violence, fraud, bribery, and terrorism, from being allowed to obtain one of these transportation cards. TSA's airport rules have successfully kept felons out of the airport workforce, and it is time we do the same for our seaport workforce. Because of the gravity of the threat facing our ports, we cannot afford to roll the dice by hiring convicted felons. The stakes are too high. When setting policies that will keep our transportation system secure, we are continually told by experts that we must identify and reduce risk in every situation possible. This amendment will prevent high-risk individuals from having access to our most sensitive port areas. Keep in mind, felonies are serious crimes that are punishable by incarceration or death. This amendment is not aimed at so-called youthful offenses or individuals who have received several traffic tickets. My amendment also does not take away the current ability of the Secretary of DHS to grant a waiver for exceptional cases. Felons, through their previous criminal activity, are more likely to be persuaded to look the other way when a suspect shipment comes through the port. This suspect system could contain a variety of dangerous items--dirty bomb, weapon, contraband to sell that would help finance terrorist operations, just to name a few. Someone who will commit extortion, fraud, or traffic in drugs should not be trusted to protect the security of our maritime cargo. While felons do need a second chance, it should not come at the expense of an extremely vulnerable part of the U.S. port infrastructure. I know some people may object to my amendment by saying that longshoremen might be criminals but they are not terrorists. I do not believe longshoremen are criminals, by the way, but that is why we need to allow DHS to focus on crimes that specifically relate to terrorism. While it may be true that many of the criminals working in our ports do not wake up with the intent to promote terrorist activity, this does not mean they do not pose a terrorist security risk. What I and many others fear is that convicted felons could pose a security terrorist risk by working with those criminals associated with trying to sneak drugs or stolen goods into this country. It might actually turn out to be 50 grams of plutonium instead of 50 grams of cocaine that could be used as a dirty bomb that would poison--kill thousands of people, or maybe it is not part of a dirty bomb or chemical weapon. Maybe it is just ordinary contraband which could be used to help fund terrorist activity in the United States. Some others think it is too expensive to automatically exclude individuals who have committed one of these serious felonies from working in our ports. To those objecting colleagues I would say: please detail to us which one of the airports in their State these offenders should be working at, because the list of felonies we use was lifted right from the same list the TSA uses for airports. Another argument I have heard is that we are not going to have enough people to work in our ports. This is an exaggeration. The fact is, the TWIC card will be rolled out and workers who need to have access to the secure area will apply for the TWIC card. As a practical matter, felons know who they are, and they know that they will not be issued a TWIC card. The likely effect is that they will never apply for a card in the first place. The local union will immediately notice that a number of its workers are not applying for TWIC cards. They will then have the opportunity to reach out to their communities and find new union members to fill the spots. Logistically, this is not a huge challenge. The port of Charleston has 2,000 longshoremen working there. If severe criminality, as outlined under the amendment is rampant within the workforce and is at the high level of 10 percent--which is nearly double the national average for incarceration at one point in their lifetime of 6.6 percent--that would only mean that they would need to replace 200 workers in the whole port of Charleston. The bottom line is this applies the same protection to seaports that applies to airports. The current TWIC regulatory regime writes their security regulations to fit their workforce. It should be the other way around. The workforce regulations should be written to meet their security needs. Mr. President, I ask we call up the amendment and have it read.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4970.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I will speak on the amendment and we will call it up once the copies are available to the minority, if that is OK?

Mr. DeMINT. About 5 minutes.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Isakson from Georgia, in calling for the ceasing of this politicizing of a very important effort and the need to unify as a nation. As we commemorate the fifth anniversary of 9/11, I was reminded of how far we have come since that terrible day in securing America's homeland against future attacks, and how much further we have left to go. I am thankful to be part of a Republican majority that is taking real action to make America safer, to secure our borders first, to strengthen port security with background checks for workers and scan every cargo container at our busiest ports for weapons of mass destruction. President Bush and a Republican-led Congress have also shown relentless determination in the war against radical Islamic terrorists all around the world. We prevented further attacks by uncovering and stopping 15 major terrorist plots against America and likely many others which are not public knowledge. We have frozen $1.5 billion in terrorists' assets in the United States through economic sanctions. We have implemented 37 of 39 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. And we have liberated more than 50 million Afghans and Iraqis from despotism, permitting the first free elections in either country. Just this week, the Senate took another important step to keep America's families safe by voting unanimously to pass the WARN Act, an important piece of legislation that will modernize our severely outdated emergency alert system using everyday technology such as cell phones and Blackberrys. Meanwhile, and unfortunately, Democrats are trying to kill the port security bill by tying it up with political amendments--once again proving that they are willing to put their hope of winning an election ahead of the security of our country. Unfortunately, during this election year, many of my Democratic colleagues seem more interested in posturing and pointing fingers than in putting forward serious proposals about how to deal with the ongoing terrorist threat. They accuse President Bush and Republicans of being satisfied with the status quo. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Republican-led Congress has actively fought to secure America's homeland by funding critical ongoing needs of our troops and by increasing funds for border security, while Democrats have blocked commonsense efforts such as stopping the catch-and-release program for illegal immigrants which encourages more and more illegal immigration in this country. The Democrats have blocked, or tried to block, the renewing of the PATRIOT Act, but we have been able to pass it despite the Democratic leader's claims to have killed it. The Republican Congress is defending the use of military intelligence and law enforcement resources that have led to the capture of many of al-Qaida's top leaders and have helped to degrade al-Qaida's capabilities around the world. But these very techniques were criticized by my distinguished Democratic colleague this morning on the floor. We have to use the technology available to us to track communications, to stop financing of terrorism around the world, and if we don't we put our country at risk. The Republicans have supported strong nominees for critical national security and foreign policy positions, such as U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, despite Democratic obstruction. Again, despite continued Democratic obstruction, Republicans will continue to push a comprehensive agenda to secure America's homeland that will strengthen our borders with additional border agents, enforce immigration laws with worker verification, secure our ports with worker background checks, and support surveillance to find and stop terrorists before they strike. What is the Democratic plan? The latest Democratic plan to secure our country is to complain about Donald Rumsfeld, to send a letter to the President telling him to do things in Iraq that have already been implemented and, as we heard this morning, to complain about the listening or tracking of phone calls from known terrorists. I can't put it any better than my good friend, the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Mitch McConnell, who recently said while talking about Democrats' cut-and-run strategy: The Democratic leadership finally agrees on something-- unfortunately, it's retreat. Whether they call it redeployment or phased withdrawal, the effect is the same: they would leave Americans more vulnerable and Iraqis at the mercy of al-Qaida, a terrorist group whose aim toward Iraqis and Americans is clear. If Democrats spent half as much time fighting terrorists as they do this administration, America would win this war a lot faster. Democrats claim to be the only ones who care about what Americans think, but Americans can see through their posturing. Compassionate rhetoric without a real plan for action is nothing more than an empty promise. Republicans are committed to securing our homeland and have backed up that talk with action. Like my colleague, Senator Isakson, I invite my Democratic colleagues to join us in honoring the sacrifice of those who have already given their lives for freedom by providing real hope and security for all Americans instead of just partisan rhetoric. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.