Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 27, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a nominations hearing.

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 Thursday, July 27, 2006, at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I come to the floor today proud that Republicans are working to build a future of hope, by securing our homeland, securing our prosperity, and securing our values. I believe today's debate over the Child Custody Protection Act cuts to the heart of who we are as a people. The ideas this bill is built on--preserving life, protecting our children, and upholding the rule of law--have defined the American character and shaped our society for over 200 years. Our commitment to protecting the most vulnerable among us is the surest test of our shared values and the key to our hope for a better future for our children and grandchildren. There are very few who would disagree that the teenage years are a vulnerable and formative time of life. Peer pressure and the anxiety it can bring are sometimes overwhelming. From decisions about where to attend college, or to understand the negative impacts of things like drug and alcohol abuse, parental communication and support are vitally important as these young people make these decisions that will determine the course of the rest of their lives. Parents need to be involved. So it puzzles me that those who oppose this bill would essentially give a green light to those who would circumvent State laws and rob parents of the chance to give their young daughters the physical care and the psychological support they so desperately need. Those who oppose this legislation claim that it would endanger teens facing truly abusive parents. So they want to strip the overwhelming majority of good parents of their rightful role and responsibility because of the misbehavior of a few. Let's be clear: No one wants to place these vulnerable girls, many of whom have already been victimized by older men, into a situation that creates more fear than they are already experiencing. That is why States have built careful safeguards into their laws to provide recourse to those who have genuine reasons to fear an abusive parent. I can imagine that the thought of facing any parent, no matter how loving, with the news of an unplanned pregnancy is a scary thing. But as a father of two daughters, I believe I speak for most parents in saying that the health and well-being of my girls is more precious to me than anything else in the world. Much worse than hearing of a pregnancy would be the news that a daughter was suffering from infertility or any of the other severe medical and emotional complications often associated with abortion--complications that, in many cases, might not be caught until it was too late if the parent was unaware of the procedure. Other critics argue that this bill would add complicated consent regulations or that it would somehow be unconstitutional. Nothing could be further from the truth. This legislation does nothing to override existing State laws or enforce any kind of Federal mandate on States. It simply strengthens the idea that the will of the people of each State, as expressed by their elected State officials, should not be circumvented for major surgical procedures that have such profound moral and medical implications. Furthermore, this bill is designed to uphold only those State laws which have been drafted carefully enough to pass constitutional muster. I am disappointed that this legislation has only attracted one Democratic cosponsor, but I am hopeful that my Democratic colleagues will not cave to pressure from the well-funded, profit-driven abortion industry, which includes Planned Parenthood and its lobbyist allies at Emily's List and NARAL. While they may provide significant sources of campaign funds, no amount of money can justify their ``abortion at any cost'' mentality, especially when that cost is the health and well- being of teenage girls and the rights of parents who most want to protect them. An overwhelming majority of Americans understands that taking a minor across State lines to obtain an abortion without her parents' knowledge is not consistent with our shared values. The Child Custody Protection Act is a well-crafted, balanced piece of legislation, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join the American people in supporting it. It is an important step toward protecting our families, securing our values, and building hope for a better future for all Americans. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I have come to the Chamber this morning to talk about energy, an important issue that affects not only our cost of living but our Nation's security. But before I do, I wish to say I was pleased, as my colleague just mentioned, that last night the Senate voted unanimously to recognize the inherent right of our ally, Israel, to defend itself against terrorist aggression. Israel has a responsibility to protect its citizens, just as the United States does, and no nation should have to live under the constant fear of missile attacks or kidnapping. The recent violence in the Middle East is demonstrating how broad this global war against radical Islamic murderers really is and how much nations such as Iran and Syria are funding these radical extremists. As Israel fights to defend its way of life from Hezbollah and Hamas and other radical Islamic terrorist groups, America will continue to support their efforts to defend their freedom. As we fight to secure our homeland from future attacks by completing our mission in Iraq and hunting down terrorists around the world, I am proud we took the time last night to recognize Israel's struggle and express our solidarity behind them. I would like to spend the rest of my time this morning talking about the energy crisis we are facing at home. Americans everywhere are paying the price. For years, Democrats have complained about high energy prices and blocked the very solutions that would have lowered them and then attempted to blame Republicans for not doing enough. American businesses, both large and small, are feeling the pinch. Recent estimates show that, since the year 2000, 3.1 million high-wage manufacturing jobs have been eliminated and moved overseas, where energy supplies are plentiful and costs are lower. American families are struggling to make ends meet. In a recent survey, nearly 80 percent thought the rising cost of energy was hurting our economy and threatening jobs; 90 percent of those polled said that high energy costs were impacting their family budget. Despite having been through the warmest winter on record, heating bills for homes using natural gas went up over 25 percent. Last year, the percentage of credit card bills 30 days or more past due reached the highest level since the American Banking Association began recording this information in 1973. The ABA's chief economist cited high gasoline prices as the major factor. One letter I received recently from a South Carolinian detailed how his father, who was on a fixed income, was forced to choose between paying for his medicine and putting gas in his car. Another constituent wrote that rising energy costs seriously threatened her family farm, due to the increased cost of vehicle operation, fertilizer, and irrigation. With all this news, is it any wonder that Americans are discouraged when they see the partisan obstruction coming from Washington Democrats? The American people need answers, not more obstruction. We recently had good news that Republican tax cuts continue to produce strong economic growth and have helped to create 5.4 million new jobs since 2003. But even as the economy grows and wages rise, family checkbooks still feel the pressure. If you get a $25-a-week raise but you have to spend $50 a week more to fill up your car with gas, you are still $25 worse off than you were when you started. It is no wonder that American's optimism about their economic future has faded as concerns over the cost of living have increased. There is no quick fix to this dilemma, but there are many things that will work together to secure our economic prosperity. We can address rising health care prices by passing small business health plans to make health insurance more affordable--another item my Democratic colleagues have obstructed this year. We can return more control to patients by ensuring that every American has a health plan that they can own and afford and keep. We can invest in the flexibility and choice necessary to train the best workforce in the world. It is not going to help to raise the minimum wage a dollar or two. We need to work on maximum wages for Americans by creating more qualified workers. We can work to increase our natural gas and oil supplies. That will reduce the cost of gas, it will increase America's supply of energy, and encourage conservation. We can reduce the dependence on foreign oil. There is a lot we can do if we can work together in the Congress to pass new energy legislation. The good news is that Republicans are working, one step at a time, to get these things done. In the next few weeks, the Senate will debate critical legislation to increase America's deep sea exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. This could help, again, to lower energy costs across the Nation. Unfortunately, some Democrats have already threatened to obstruct this important bill that would keep American energy prices competitive and hopefully lower them in the future. We are still waiting for these same Democrats to offer any immediate solutions on their own. Strong economic growth in America and around the world has greatly increased the demand for already limited supplies of energy. We are now competing with other nations, not just for jobs but for the energy that powers those jobs. Our energy problems did not occur overnight and they will not be fixed overnight. But if we fail to address rising American energy costs, we will create yet another incentive for businesses to locate overseas and leave American workers behind. To keep the United States competitive, we must transform our energy policy to meet pressing short-term needs while exploring new alternative solutions to meet long-term needs for abundant, affordable, and emission-free energy. Currently, expensive and time-consuming permitting processes, extensive regulatory burdens, and overly bureaucratic environmental hurdles have made it cheaper to import our oil and natural gas from the Middle East than to use our own domestic resources. This makes no sense. To address the short-term issue of constantly fluctuating energy prices, we must eliminate these Government-imposed regulatory roadblocks in order to increase our energy supply and get these resources to consumers quickly and affordably. We can unshackle American entrepreneurs, the best in the world, and allow them to fully develop our natural resources and still protect our environment. The long-term policy must focus on creating a diverse energy infrastructure that includes new technologies such as hydrogen, fuel cells, and other alternative forms of energy. Many of these technologies, currently in the early stages of development, have shown great promise and can revolutionize the way we fuel our cars, homes, and businesses. Energy costs are on the rise and the ball is in the Democrats' court. Republicans have put forth practical solutions, such as the deep sea development that we will be talking about over the next weeks. These will diversify our energy infrastructure and supply affordable, abundant, and environmentally friendly energy, and most important, reduce the cost of living for American families. I ask my Democratic colleagues to reject their leadership's tired strategy of blocking real solutions and then trying to blame Republicans when the problems don't get solved. Working together, we can bring down the cost of living and improve the quality of life for every American as we reduce the cost of gas and increase America's supply of energy. We can still encourage conservation, while reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I come to the floor amazed that our Democratic colleagues still claim that tax cuts are to blame for the budget deficit. In criticizing the President, they fail to mention that the previous administration handed this President a recession, corporate scandals, and a worldwide terror network that had gone unchallenged for 8 years. Now, similar to President Clinton, the Democrats say we need to raise taxes. This is the same, tired argument they have used since the 1980s. Ronald Reagan answered them ably in his own humorous way when he said doing away with tax cuts in order to balance the budget was ``like trying to pull a game out in the fourth quarter by punting on third down.'' Now the new midsession review is answering these tax cut critics again. When we cut taxes, we invest in economic growth, which not only creates jobs but brings in new tax receipts, and that helps balance the budget. It also puts more money in the pockets of the American people. Last year, we were happily surprised to see that the budget deficit for 2005 came in at $108 billion less than anticipated due to the unexpected rise in tax receipts stemming from economic growth. This year, we see the same trend. The midsession review states that tax receipts have produced another $127 billion in new revenues. This is exactly the opposite of what Democrats claimed would happen when we passed the jobs and growth tax cut packages in 2001 and 2003. One of my Democratic colleagues from Michigan said at the time that this bill would ``create fewer jobs than what is needed'' and ``dramatically increase the deficit and national debt. . . .'' Another Democratic colleague from Wisconsin justified his vote against the jobs and growth package saying: ``I am still looking for the part of the package that will result in jobs and economic growth.'' Senators, look no further. In addition to the $235 billion total in new revenues, we have created 5.4 million jobs since August of 2003. And the Democrats still say that we can't afford tax cuts. Republicans and the American people know better. A shrinking deficit and more Americans at work are proving we can't afford to raise taxes. I encourage my Democratic colleagues to remember what President John F. Kennedy--John F. Kennedy, one of their own--said, that ``the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut tax rates now.'' President Kennedy's words still ring true today. Cutting taxes allows working American families to keep more of their hard-earned dollars and encourages businesses to be competitive and invest in future growth. Both Presidents Kennedy and Reagan understood it is business, not Government, that creates jobs and prosperity. This is why Republicans will continue to fight to stop future Democratic tax increases, to make Republican tax relief permanent, and push for comprehensive tax reform. I am pleased that this midsession review offers yet more proof that the Republican's agenda to secure American jobs and balance the budget is working. We are making progress. It is third down and time for us to run the ball for a touchdown--not punt it away. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 4 of rule XVI for the purpose of proposing to the bill H.R. 5441 amendment No. 4568. (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of Amendments''.)

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold an oversight hearing on EPA regional inconsistencies.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Native American Housing Programs.

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 Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 3:15 p.m., in closed session, for a discussion on training and equipping Iraqi security forces.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 28, 2006, immediately following the first rollcall vote of the day's session, to vote on the nomination of Mr. James S. Simpson, of New York, to be Federal Transit Administrator, Department of Transportation.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, to consider H.R. 5252.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 10:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the nomination of Marc Spitzer, of Arizona, to be a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the term expiring June 30, 2011, vice Nora Mead Brownell, resigned.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider S. 1321, the Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act of 2005, and an amendment that incorporates S. 832, the Taxpayer Protection and Assistance Act of 2005. Pending the introduction of a bill, the Chairman also intends to hold a markup of legislation to implement the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on nominations.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 10 a.m., followed by a full committee hearing commencing at 10:30 a.m. Both the executive session and full committee hearing are scheduled to be held in SD-430.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 10 a.m., to consider the nominations of Mickey D. Barnett, Katherine C. Tobin, and Ellen C. Williams to be Governors, U.S. Postal Service.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Hedge Funds and Independent Analysts: How Independent Are Their Relationships?'' on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226. Witness list Panel I: The Honorable Matt Friedrich Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Crime Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC; The Honorable Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT. Panel II: Gary Aguirre, Former Investigator, Securities Exchange Commission, Washington, DC; Marc Kasowitz, Senior Partner, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, Alliance for Investment Transparency, New York, NY; Joseph McLaughlin, Partner, Sidley & Austin LLP, Managed Fund Association, New York, NY; Kim Blickenstaff, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Biosite, Inc., San Diego, CA; Owen Lamont, Professor of Finance, Yale School of Management, New Haven, CT; Demetrios Anifantis, Former Employee, Camelback Research Alliance, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ; Howard Schillit, Chief Executive Officer and Founder, Center for Financial Research and Analysis [CFRA, LLC], Rockville, MD; Jonathan Boersma, Director, Standards of Practice CFA Centre for Financial Market Integrity, Charlottesville, VA.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 2 p.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness list Panel I: (Members of Congress). Panel II: Kimberly Ann Moore to be United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit; Bobby E. Shepherd to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1812, to amend the reclamation projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to provide for the conjunctive use of surface and ground water in Juab County, Utah; S. 1965, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain buildings and lands of the Yakima Project, Washington, to the Yakima-Tieton irrigation district; S. 2129, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land and improvements of the Gooding division of the Minidoka Project, Idaho; S. 2470, to authorize early repayment of obligations to the Bureau of Reclamation within the A&B irrigation district in the State of Idaho; S. 2502, to provide for the modification of an amendatory repayment contract between the Secretary of the Interior and the North Unit Irrigation District, and for other purposes; S. 3404, a bill to preauthorize the MNI Wiconi rural water supply project; H.R. 2383, to predesignate the facility of the Bureau of Reclamation located at 19550 Kelso Road in Byron, California, as the ``C.W. `Bill' Jones Plumbing Plant''; and H.R. 4204, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer ownership of the American River pump station project and for other purposes.

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, June 28 is a great day in the history of my State of South Carolina and in the formation of our great Nation. You see, it is on this date that we celebrate Carolina Day. Two hundred and thirty years ago today, a small but determined group of fewer than 1,200 South Carolina patriots held off a British force that was more than twice their size. The battle--which took place on Sullivan's Island, just outside the entrance to Charleston Harbor--became the first major American victory of the Revolutionary War. Colonel William Moultrie, who commanded the colonist troops, had few resources at his disposal. So, he built a fort out of palmetto logs--a plentiful local resource. Facing such make-shift opposition, the British commanders thought they would easily sweep into Charleston. But these amazing palmetto logs actually absorbed the impact of the British cannonballs. This strengthened the American defense and gave the brave colonists a critical advantage. The British were soundly defeated in a long, nine-hour battle. More than 200 of the British were killed or wounded, compared to only 35 of Colonel Moultrie's command. Many historians consider this battle to be one of the greatest defeats in the entire history of the British navy. Many South Carolina heroes were made on that day. One such, hero, Sergeant William Jasper, is recognized for saving the regiment's flag after it was shot down by British fire. Seeing that it had been hit, Jasper exclaimed, ``Colonel, don't let us fight without our flag!'' Sergeant Jasper then jumped into the face of enemy fire, walked the entire length of the fort--in full view of the British and cut the flag from its broken pole. He then added a new staff and replanted the flag back on the fort wall. Turning to the enemy, he gave three cheers and returned to his gun. That flag--a blue banner with a white crescent--represented the dream of real freedom to these patriots. And today, that historic banner still serves as a source of pride and inspiration, as part of South Carolina's official State seal. The blue background and white crescent also serve as the basis of our beautiful State flag, which incorporates a tall, proud palmetto tree . . . in recognition of the heroes of Fort Moultrie. The resounding American defense of the City of Charleston at Fort Moultrie gave our fledgling Nation hope in the possibility of ultimate victory. And less than one week later--on July 4, 1776--the Continental Congress forever changed the course of history, signing our Declaration of Independence. This story has profound relevance to what we face today as we fight the global war on terror. I can imagine those great patriots felt the same kind of joy that is plainly visible in the eyes of Iraqi citizens . . . people who are only now beginning to share in the sweet taste of freedoms that we so often take for granted. Mr. President, as we celebrate Independence Day with friends and family, may we always remember the price that was paid for our freedom. And may we resolve that the sacrifice of our brave soldiers across the years--from Fort Moultrie, SC, to Kirkuk, Iraq--will never have been in vain. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:20 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the nomination of Henry Paulson to be Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, we are being subjected, once again, to the tired old Democratic song that Republicans are trying to help their rich friends, even though the other side has said only 2 or 3 out of every 1,000 Americans pay this tax. They think we are doing this to get votes. Even though they say only a small number of Americans pay this tax, the majority of Americans believe it is wrong because they know what Senator Sessions was just saying about a family-owned hotel chain, that it is not just those who own it who will suffer if it is broken up and sold, that it is all the people who work for it. So the question today is really when someone dies in America, should their property and possessions go to the Government, or should it stay working in a family business or farm in producing jobs in this country? One point I would like to make in this short period of time is, this estate tax does not benefit the average American. It does not help poor Americans. In fact, it takes their job. Just to deal with the death tax--and we have heard these figures before--lawyer and accountant fees are from $30,000 to $150,000, life insurance policies, which Senator Sessions just mentioned, appraisal costs, tax preparation--the cost of dealing with this is actually much more than the revenue. This chart reminds us that the revenue in the death tax is less than $25 billion a year, but the economic cost to our country is estimated at $847 billion in lost capital investment because of the death tax, a loss of over 100,000 jobs per year, and over $10 billion in lost income. The American people are not stupid. They know that while this tax may hit the wealthiest of Americans, that most of us as Americans work for those family businesses or farms. It makes no sense to break up these businesses and send the money to the Government where it will not be nearly as effective in producing economic prosperity. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Ensign's amendment. I very much appreciate him offering it on behalf of the American people. I also appreciate the efforts of all my colleagues who I know have worked in good faith to try to create a better immigration system that works for Americans and our heritage of welcoming immigrants. As we have gone through this process, I think it has been a good, civil, and constructive debate, but some of us are just coming down on different sides. My hope was as we went through this debate that we would recognize the urgent sense that Americans have what we need to secure our borders and that we need to stop illegal immigration before we expand legal immigration or increase benefits to those who are here illegally. I had hoped that when Senator Isakson offered his amendment that included comprehensive reform but created a commonsense sequence, that we in America would see that we need to control our borders before we add additional legal immigrants. But when that amendment failed, I think it discouraged a lot of us, that perhaps everyone wasn't working in a way that would be constructive for America's future. We also saw when Senator Ensign offered an amendment that had some commonsense ideas if someone had come here illegally and stolen someone's Social Security number, certainly they should not be rewarded by receiving Social Security benefits for the time they were using a stolen Social Security number. I think most of us thought that commonsense amendment would have been adopted overwhelmingly. Unfortunately, it failed, which discouraged many of us who wanted to work as part of a team toward comprehensive reform. Now we see with this amendment a recognition that we don't need to continue to add reward on top of reward for those who have been working here illegally. While we need to struggle to find a system that works for America, we should not use taxpayer dollars, American taxpayer dollars to give tax credits to folks who have been working here illegally. This does not make sense. Again, I encourage my colleagues to consider this because it is not only unjust to Americans, I think it is unfair to immigrants. This bill is ultimately going to create such a level of resentment for our immigrants. Once Americans see that this bill creates rewards for those who have come here illegally, not just Social Security benefits but tax credits, citizenships, wages that in many cases are better than Americans', guaranteed wages, Americans are going to see this as unfair and resent the immigrants, and I think it will hurt our heritage of immigration in this country. I appreciate Senator Ensign offering this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.