Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill that would require hospitals to disclose their charges for the most common procedures and drugs. This bill recognizes that consumers seeking routine hospital services need to know what they are paying so they can make educated decisions about their own health care. This legislation aims to give Americans that information in a user friendly format. Specifically, the bill would require hospitals to regularly report to the Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services the amount they charge for the 25 most commonly performed inpatient procedures, the 25 most common outpatient procedures, and the 50 most frequently administered medications. The Department would then post this information on the Internet for easy access. Under the current system, patients often have no idea what they will be charged until they receive a bill. This is a problem because hospital charges vary significantly based on facility and procedure. Some hospitals charge one-hundred and twenty dollars for a chest x-ray while others charge more than fifteen hundred. Uninsured patients and those who pay with cash are often surprised with unexpected hospital charges because there is no way for them to know what they will be charged up front. No other industry expects consumers to commit to buying before they know the true cost. Patients should have access to price information before they commit to a procedure. This bipartisan bill is good for the uninsured and for consumer driven healthcare. Individuals cannot be expected to get comfortable making their own health care decisions unless they know how much they will be expected to pay for different services. I am grateful to Senators Richard Durbin and John Cornyn for joining me as original cosponsors of this bi-partisan legislation. I am also pleased that Representatives Bob Inglis and Dan Lipinski have introduced companion legislation in the House. They recognize that information is power, and this bill is an important step in empowering Americans with the tools to be smart consumers. I urge my Senate colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, today I introduce the Cleanup and Reconstruction Enhancement Act, CARE Act, legislation that would free those trying to rebuild after emergencies from burdensome regulations imposed by the Davis-Bacon Act. As Chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction, I traveled to the gulf coast to see the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina. My heart went out to the victims and their families, and my hope was to see the infrastructure there restored as quickly as possible to avoid further destruction and loss of life. Unfortunately, Federal law places barriers on our efforts to respond to Hurricane Katrina quickly and efficiently. The Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Labor concluded in a May 2004 report that 84 percent of Davis-Bacon wage determination surveys take more than a year and a half to complete, forcing emergency projects to use outdated wage determinations and to suffer needless delays. The Davis-Bacon Act also prohibits the use of entry-level workers classified as ``helpers'' on federally funded projects, and artificially raises construction costs by up to 33 percent. Furthermore, the Davis-Bacon Act discourages many small businesses from bidding on public projects, because contractors who are unfamiliar with the complex set of laws and regulations often choose not to participate in reconstruction efforts or end up being cited or sued for naively violating laws. For these reasons, Davis-Bacon regulations were suspended by Executive Order 11 days after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast. Knowing what we know now, it is unconscionable for us to force victims of future disasters to suffer through any waiting period before we remove barriers to reconstruction. The CARE Act would automatically trigger a year-long suspension of Davis-Bacon Act rules in all future disaster sites that receive an emergency declaration from the President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, today I introduce the Cleanup and Reconstruction Enhancement Act, CARE Act, legislation that would free those trying to rebuild after emergencies from burdensome regulations imposed by the Davis-Bacon Act. As Chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction, I traveled to the gulf coast to see the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina. My heart went out to the victims and their families, and my hope was to see the infrastructure there restored as quickly as possible to avoid further destruction and loss of life. Unfortunately, Federal law places barriers on our efforts to respond to Hurricane Katrina quickly and efficiently. The Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Labor concluded in a May 2004 report that 84 percent of Davis-Bacon wage determination surveys take more than a year and a half to complete, forcing emergency projects to use outdated wage determinations and to suffer needless delays. The Davis-Bacon Act also prohibits the use of entry-level workers classified as ``helpers'' on federally funded projects, and artificially raises construction costs by up to 33 percent. Furthermore, the Davis-Bacon Act discourages many small businesses from bidding on public projects, because contractors who are unfamiliar with the complex set of laws and regulations often choose not to participate in reconstruction efforts or end up being cited or sued for naively violating laws. For these reasons, Davis-Bacon regulations were suspended by Executive Order 11 days after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast. Knowing what we know now, it is unconscionable for us to force victims of future disasters to suffer through any waiting period before we remove barriers to reconstruction. The CARE Act would automatically trigger a year-long suspension of Davis-Bacon Act rules in all future disaster sites that receive an emergency declaration from the President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Judge John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Just 1 year ago, I was in the middle of a heated Senate campaign, and one of the most important issues to the voters of South Carolina, an issue that came up again and again, was the topic of judges. At that time, I promised the people of South Carolina that I would fight for fair judges who would judge based on the facts and the law, not on their personal political opinions. Americans simply cannot understand how certain judges arrive at decisions such as banning the Pledge of Allegiance or allowing local governments to take a person's home and give it to a business simply to generate more taxes. Judge Roberts clearly understands and demonstrated in his hearings that he is the kind of Justice America needs. He is brilliant, fair, and independent. He has proven himself to be a person of integrity who is committed to equal justice for all Americans. Judge Roberts is eminently qualified. He has earned the American Bar Association's highest rating of ``well qualified.'' Before being unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 2003 to the DC Court of Appeals, Judge Roberts had already established an unmatched resume in the legal world. After graduating in the top of his class from Harvard Law School, he went on to clerk for Justice William Rehnquist and then worked as a top aide in President Reagan's Justice Department. In private and public practice, he argued an amazing 39 cases before the Supreme Court, establishing his reputation as one of the Nation's top litigators. During his hearing, Judge Roberts displayed his humble expertise, and I believe Americans warmly welcome his approach to the law. Despite what some Democrats are saying, Judge Roberts was very forthcoming at his hearing in discussing his judicial philosophy, his legal thinking, and his views on a judge's proper role within our constitutional framework. The Senate was also allowed to review an unprecedented number of documents from Judge Roberts' service in the Federal Government illustrating his judicial philosophy and legal ability. In question after question, Judge Roberts showed an extraordinary knowledge of the law and its history. Without the use of notes or staff, Judge Roberts easily recalled facts from hundreds of years of case law. I was pleased to see during the hearings that Judge Roberts stuck strictly to the Ginsburg rule, choosing not to comment on cases or issues that are likely to appear before the Court. In her hearings, Justice Ginsburg emphatically declared that she could give ``no hints, no forecasts, no previews'' as to how she would decide on future cases. She was right to do so. Judges are expected to be impartial and fair, looking at each case without prejudice. Senators who expected Judge Roberts to answer questions that required him to prejudge cases were ignoring the Code of Judicial Ethics and, I suspect, playing politics with the confirmation process for partisan reasons. Nominees should never compromise their judicial independence and ability to rule fairly by advocating positions on issues that could come before them. Judges are not politicians. In fact, Judge Roberts himself put it best during the hearings when he said: Judges wear black robes because it doesn't matter who they are as individuals. That's not going to shape their decision. It's their understanding of the law that will shape their decision. Judge Roberts has earned praise for his conduct during the confirmation hearings, and he has solidified broad, bipartisan support. I believe Judge Roberts deserves a fair up-or-down vote before the Supreme Court starts its next session in October. It is important to have a Chief Justice on the bench for the start of the session and to have the Court at full strength. Based on my July meeting with Judge Roberts, based on his qualifications and his exemplary performance before the Judiciary Committee, I am confident he will strictly interpret the law and not legislate from the bench. Judge Roberts has all the qualities Americans want in their Chief Justice. It is critical that the Chief Justice have the ability to listen to all sides of a debate and work well with each Associate Justice. Judge Roberts has clearly displayed his patience, fairness, and respect. The votes tomorrow for Judge Roberts will show that an overwhelming majority of Senators agree. The votes tomorrow against Judge Roberts will reveal the Senators who would not support any of President Bush's nominees, no matter how qualified they are. I fully support the nomination of Judge Roberts. I will cast my vote in his favor for confirmation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support Judge Roberts as the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, we have all been saddened to see the images of Hurricane Katrina's devastation. I know the Presiding Officer has seen more of these images than perhaps anyone in the Senate. We have seen images of children who have lost their parents and families who have lost their homes. These images break the heart of every American. Hurricane Katrina created an area of destruction that is 90,000 square miles, roughly the size of Great Britain. Homes have been leveled, roads are unusable, bridges have crumbled, and hundreds of thousands of lives will be forever changed. As the chairman of the Commerce Committee's Disaster Prediction and Prevention Subcommittee, I traveled with the Coast Guard to the gulf coast earlier this month. We viewed the coasts of Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana. What became immediately clear to me was that television cannot accurately convey what happened. The devastation is massive and comprehensive. Seeing a home demolished on television begins to communicate the tragedy, but seeing 60 to 70 miles of that repeated over and over again is heartbreaking and almost impossible to comprehend. As we can see from these slides, beginning in New Orleans, during the helicopter trip, from a distance, we could see the waters covering everywhere. From a few feet above the water, you could also smell the contamination from oil and sewage. It is unbelievable what the folks there are having to deal with. To continue, at the time, the water was still up to the rooftops. The Coast Guard captain who was with me told me when they first arrived the day after the hurricane, about 70 percent of these roofs had people on them who needed to be rescued. We became very aware that we had two disasters: in New Orleans, continued flooding; and along the entire coast of Mississippi, it was as though a hand had wiped everything off a table. Everything was completely destroyed. Not a house along the beaches was either there or inhabitable. And we continued to see the same thing all along the coast. Again, television can capture one or two homes, but the concretelike ``gravestones'' showed where homes used to be, and trees are already dying from the saltwater, which will damage the whole coastal area for many years to come. These are completely different disasters and different challenges for our first responders. In Mississippi, the houses themselves have been demolished by the wind and storm, as we can see. In New Orleans, the flooding has severely damaged the homes. One thing both locations have in common is that the homes will never again be inhabitable. The wind-damaged homes, those that still stand, will likely be declared a complete loss. In New Orleans, the homes that were flooded are permanently damaged and are beyond repair. One of the positive stories that is often lost in this tragedy is the amazing work performed by first responders, especially those from the U.S. Coast Guard. Working hours on end in awful conditions, they rescued thousands of people and are, without question, true heroes. I visited the Coast Guard aviation training center in Mobile, AL, which was transformed from a few hundred personnel before the storm to nearly 1,200 personnel after the storm. The Coast Guard sent people from all around the Nation to run rescue operations 24 hours a day. Coast Guardsmen from all over the Nation, as far away as Alaska, answered the call and came to the rescue of their fellow citizens. To date, first responders have been responsible for saving approximately 49,000 lives, 33,000 by the Coast Guard alone. That is more than six times the number they saved in all of 2004. The impact to the coast is going to be a long-term issue. The storm has had a significant impact on the trees in the region. You can see significant portions of the area along the coastline where trees are dead. These trees were a natural obstacle to erosion, and now that protection will be missing for a number of years. Boats can be seen among the trees far inland. The gulf coast is our Nation's largest provider of shrimp and oysters. Their way of life has been destroyed. It was clear from the boats I saw stranded inland, sometimes on rooftops, that the gulf's fishing industry will need years to recover. But while Hurricane Katrina was certainly one of the worst disasters to ever hit our Nation, it has also brought out the greatest outpouring of compassion from American citizens. In my State of South Carolina, families have opened their wallets and homes to affected people. Our State knows all too well the tragic effects hurricanes can bring, and we have often been the recipient of help from other States. We remember the show of support from the gulf when we were struck by Hurricane Hugo, and South Carolinians have not been hesitant to come to the gulf's rescue. Well over 2,000 South Carolina families have contacted our Red Cross to offer whatever assistance is needed. It is now estimated that up to 5,000 evacuees are being hosted in South Carolina, either by individual families or in shelters such as the Palmetto Expo Center in Greenville. The South Carolina National Guard has also joined in the relief effort. Nearly 350 of them have been to the gulf to help. Countless churches and civic organizations have taken their own initiatives to organize relief efforts. From fundraising drives to collections and delivery of supplies, to driving to the region to volunteer in any capacity needed, the people of South Carolina have risen to the occasion. This show of support is so encouraging to me about our State and the state of our Nation. Americans are caring and compassionate, and we will work side by side with our fellow citizens to rebuild and bring hope back to the gulf coast. This afternoon my Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction will be hearing from the Director of the National Hurricane Center and witnesses from the gulf coast region on what the Government got right in advance of the storm and how we can replicate that in the future to protect our Nation's coastal communities. Our most powerful defense against hurricanes is accurate prediction and effective evacuation. I look forward to their testimony and am confident it will provide important lessons for America's emergency planners. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Delaware speaking about our Constitution and religious freedoms because I would like to follow up on his remarks. This week, Americans watching the confirmation hearings of Judge John Roberts witnessed something unique about his character, something we had seen before but that is now undeniable--his humility. I believe humility is a virtue that we should all feel as Americans. We should be humble in light of the blessings that we have in this great country, humble in light of the courage of our Founders, and humble in light of the wisdom of the drafters of the Constitution. This country was founded on religious freedom by our Founding Fathers, many of whom were deeply religious. They wanted to create a place where they could worship without fear of persecution. Unfortunately, the Federal district court declared yesterday that the phrase ``under God'' in our Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. This is deeply troublesome and is no less irrational than it would be to declare the Constitution itself unconstitutional. The ruling by the Federal court in California is yet another example of the hostility by many activist judges toward a time-honored tradition. This tradition has been defended by numerous Justices, including Justice O'Connor, who said that eliminating such references would sever ties to a history that sustains this Nation even today. The Pledge of Allegiance began in 1892 as a patriotic exercise, expressing loyalty to our Nation. It is a part of an American tapestry of time-honored and historically significant traditions that have come under attack in this country. By international standards, we are a young country. Yet we seem so quick and so willing to throw out parts of our heritage that our Founders recognized as important. ``One nation under God'' is no more the establishment or endorsement of religion than our national motto, ``in God we trust,'' which is here above our door and above the Speaker's chair on the other side of the Capitol; or the phrase ``God bless America,'' the closing words often used by the President when making public comments or speeches. The Declaration of Independence states that our rights are inalienable for one reason, because we are endowed by our creator with these rights. All of our references to God are the ways the Government properly and constitutionally acknowledges our religious heritage. We are a great nation, but we are also one nation under God. We are filled with people who know how fortunate we are and how different our lives could be elsewhere. This is why it is important that we are reminded and that our children are reminded to be humble. Reciting that the United States is one nation under God is a statement of humility, a way of acknowledging that even as a world superpower, we recognize there is something bigger than we are, that our freedoms in this country come from God--not from Government. If we expel God from our public life, and if we lose humility that comes with the belief in a creator, our children and grandchildren will inherit an arrogant nation that has little hope for the future. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate CPT William F. ``Bill'' Marcley for his 38 years of service and commitment to saving lives and advancing emergency medical services. Bill began this selfless work in 1967 after he and his wife were involved in a serious car accident, by turning the experience into an opportunity to serve as a volunteer on the Inter-City First Aid Squad in Lake Park, FL. After helping establish paramedic systems in four counties in Florida, Bill and his family moved to South Carolina in 1977, where he would serve three counties over the next 28 years in many capacities, inc1uding director of Fairfield County EMS and EMS Operations Manage in my home county of Greenville. In addition to his full-time positions, Bill has found time to serve his community as United Way Coordinator for the Department of Public Safety, chairman of ``Operation Heartbeat'' for the American Heart Association, EMT instructor at Greenville Technological College, and he annually conducts over 100 special programs promoting public safety and emergency medical service education. On behalf of myself and the State of South Carolina. I thank and commend Captain Marcley for the many contributions he has made in the lives of countless South Carolinians. Although he officially began his retirement on September 9, 2005, I know that his service to South Carolina is far from over, and I wish him and his wife, Arlene, many more happy and productive years together.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I rise today to offer a bill that would amend the medical and dental expense income tax deduction so that nonprescription or over-the-counter drugs would be allowed as a deductible expense for taxpayers who itemize their deductions. Currently, the IRS list of qualifying medical expenses does not include OTCs; this bill makes them a qualifying medical expense. The bill does this by striking the subsection that limits the deduction for drug expenses to prescription drugs and insulin. It also makes it easier for people to reach and exceed the 7.5 percent threshold. I believe this bill will be particularly helpful for low income taxpayers and those with high healthcare expenses. Over 5 percent of tax filers currently claim the deduction for medical and dental expenses. Additionally, individual taxpayers can also claim the medical expenses of their spouses and dependent children--so pediatric cough syrup bought by parents for their children would be deductible if OTC medical expenses allowed. This bill recognizes that over-the-counter drugs may be a big cost for some individuals and families. In addition, Americans using a Flexible Spending Account or Health Savings Account get preferred tax treatment for OTCs, but Americans without them do not. Tax treatment of prescription and non-prescription drugs should be equal in this area. I am grateful to Senator Bill Nelson for joining me as a lead sponsor of this bill. I am also pleased that Representatives Melissa Hart and Mike Ross have introduced companion legislation in the House. These individuals understand that reducing the cost of medicine is a goal we should all support. I urge my Senate colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I rise today to offer a bill that would amend the medical and dental expense income tax deduction so that nonprescription or over-the-counter drugs would be allowed as a deductible expense for taxpayers who itemize their deductions. Currently, the IRS list of qualifying medical expenses does not include OTCs; this bill makes them a qualifying medical expense. The bill does this by striking the subsection that limits the deduction for drug expenses to prescription drugs and insulin. It also makes it easier for people to reach and exceed the 7.5 percent threshold. I believe this bill will be particularly helpful for low income taxpayers and those with high healthcare expenses. Over 5 percent of tax filers currently claim the deduction for medical and dental expenses. Additionally, individual taxpayers can also claim the medical expenses of their spouses and dependent children--so pediatric cough syrup bought by parents for their children would be deductible if OTC medical expenses allowed. This bill recognizes that over-the-counter drugs may be a big cost for some individuals and families. In addition, Americans using a Flexible Spending Account or Health Savings Account get preferred tax treatment for OTCs, but Americans without them do not. Tax treatment of prescription and non-prescription drugs should be equal in this area. I am grateful to Senator Bill Nelson for joining me as a lead sponsor of this bill. I am also pleased that Representatives Melissa Hart and Mike Ross have introduced companion legislation in the House. These individuals understand that reducing the cost of medicine is a goal we should all support. I urge my Senate colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of S. 1307, the CAFTA Implementation Act, because it advances America's economic and security interests. As someone who spent over 20 years in business before entering public service, I continue to be amazed by those in Washington who support outdated policies that make it harder and harder for American businesses to compete. Excessive taxation, regulation and litigation are driving American employers out of their minds and American jobs overseas. Yet too many politicians continue to support higher taxes, junk lawsuits, and trade barriers that effectively put signs on our beaches that say: Go do business somewhere else. If we are going to have the best jobs in the world, we must make America the best place in the world to do business. This starts by reforming our complicated Tax Code, reducing mindless Government regulations, and eliminating frivolous lawsuits that, together, add mountains of needless costs on our businesses. Creating a pro-business environment in the United States also means we must open international markets to American exports so our workers can compete on a level playing field. CAFTA, for example, would expand the market for U.S. goods with 44 million consumers in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic. Nearly 80 percent of goods from the six CAFTA countries currently enter the United States duty-free. Yet American exports are taxed virtually across the board when they enter CAFTA markets. On U.S. motor vehicles and parts, CAFTA countries levy an average tariff of 11 percent, while the U.S. rate is zero. On vegetables, fruits, and nuts, the CAFTA region's average is 16.7 percent, again compared with zero in the United States. On grains, it is 10.6 percent to zero; and on meat products, it is 14.7 percent, while the U.S. rate is just 3 percent. CAFTA would eliminate these disparities. The agreement would level the playing field by eliminating 80 percent of the tariffs on American exports immediately, with the remaining tariffs phased out over 10 years. This would help exporters in my home State of South Carolina like BMW, Caterpillar and General Electric, as well as farmers and ranchers raising soybeans, peaches, pork, and poultry. The American Farm Bureau Federation estimates CAFTA could expand U.S. farm exports by $1.5 billion a year. Manufacturers would also benefit, especially in sectors like information technology products, agricultural and construction equipment, paper products, pharmaceuticals, and medical and scientific equipment. According to a recent economic impact study conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in the first year alone CAFTA would increase output in South Carolina by $167 million and create over 900 new jobs. In 9 years, the study shows a potential increase in output across all industries of $701 million and the creation of over 6,000 jobs. The South Carolina State Ports Authority has told me CAFTA will contribute to greater economic development in South Carolina by stimulating commerce and the shipment of freight through the Port of Charleston. In 2004, Central America represented $359 million of the total value of the Port's business. In fact, Charleston's exports to Central America have grown faster than the average export growth. Most exporters agree: CAFTA is a great deal for South Carolina business. Yet there is a small group in the textile industry whose opposition poses a threat to this step forward. They say CAFTA will allow China to exploit a ``loophole'' in the agreement. But they fail to recognize that without CAFTA there will be no loop at all--just one giant hole that China will use to destroy our industry. The truth is that a vote against CAFTA is a vote for China. Garment factories in Central America purchase large amounts of American fabric and yarn. In fact, the region is the second-largest world market for U.S. textile fabrics and yarns. Under CAFTA, these garments made in the region will be duty-free and quota-free only if they use U.S. fabric and yarn. In fact, more than 90 percent of all apparel made in the region will be sewn from fabric and yarn made in the United States, thereby supporting U.S. textile exports and U.S. textile jobs. This is especially important for South Carolina workers. In 2004, South Carolina's exports of fabric mill products to the CAFTA region were valued at $180 million, more than half of the State's total exports to the region. If we going to continue to have these exports and not lose the business to Asia, we must pass CAFTA. The American Apparel and Footwear Association made this point in a recent letter to President Bush where it said, if CAFTA ``is not enacted soon, U.S. apparel and footwear companies will place more of their business outside this hemisphere.'' And the National Council of Textile Organizations recently endorsed CAFTA, saying, Central America ``is a very important part of the domestic industry's supply chain and we need (CAFTA) to ensure that the U.S. textile industry can remain competitive against China.'' The elimination of quotas on Chinese textiles has eroded the partnership the U.S. has with the Central American region. Our existing partnership is also weakened by burdensome documentation requirements and by the fact that it will expire soon. All of these factors reduce the incentive to make cloth ing in the region using U.S. inputs. CAFTA, however, will solidify and stabilize this partnership by making the current program broader, easier to use, more flexible, permanent, and reciprocal. The agreement will create new sales opportunities for U.S. textile and apparel products by providing permanent incentives for the use of U.S. yarns and fabrics in textile articles made in the region. And it will also give us new advantages over our competitors by promoting duty-free access for U.S. textile and apparel exports to local markets in the region. I also thank the President and his administration for their efforts to make the agreement even stronger. Specifically, I have worked closely with U.S. Trade Ambassador Rob Portman to strengthen provisions dealing with textile pocketing. On May 9 of this year, Ambassador Portman wrote me about his desire to use the agreement's amendment mechanism to include pocketing in the rule of origin. He wrote: I assure you that USTR will utilize this mechanism, working closely with our textile industry, to seek an amendment to the CAFTA so that pocketing would have to originate in one of the signatory Parties. This is very important to textile manufacturers in South Carolina who make pockets and want to have a strong partnership with the CAFTA region. It is time to stop saying ``no'' to every trade agreement, regardless of the benefits. We must stop acting like we are operating in the business environment of 50 years ago. We must stand up and fight for a better deal today. We can't build a wall around our country and expect to remain competitive. And we can't keep sticking our heads in the sand. Instead, we must fight back with new agreements that knock down barriers and create new markets. We must fight back and win because that is what Americans do. We have the best workers in the world and we can compete with anyone in the world. CAFTA also provides a unique opportunity to promote democracy, security, and prosperity in a part of the world that was once characterized by oppression and military dictatorship. This agreement is critical to the economic and political stability of these young democracies, and it is a signal of our Nation's commitment to democracy and prosperity in this hemisphere. As we continue to fight the war on terrorism, America has a vested interest in making sure these countries do not turn their backs on freedom. I had the opportunity to personally meet with the Presidents from the CAFTA countries earlier this year, and many of them are taking significant political risks to promote economic freedom. We need to stand with them. We must stand with them and pass this agreement. The benefits of CAFTA are clear. The agreement will strengthen our economic ties with our democratic neighbors, it will promote opportunity and prosperity in the United States and the region, and it will strengthen our security at home by promoting democracy and prosperity in our hemisphere. This agreement is a forward strategy for freedom, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, again, I thank you for this time this morning. I do stand to speak on behalf of CAFTA, and I appreciate the Senator on the other side of the aisle yielding this morning.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, it's time to stop the raid on Social Security. For over twenty years, Congress has maintained the misguided practice of over-collecting Social Security taxes and spending them on other government programs. Congress has used the Social Security Trust Fund to promote the false notion that Social Security actually saves the money workers pay in, and it is time to end this abusive practice. It is time we start saving these resources in personal accounts that politicians cannot spend. Money cannot have 2 masters--it either belongs to the government or to individual Americans. The only way to prevent Congress from spending Social Security surpluses is to rebate these funds back to a worker in a personal account with their name on it. The only true lock-box is a personal account. President Bush has done a good job helping Americans understand the problem. Now it is up to Congress to build consensus around some solutions. Every American and nearly everyone in Congress agree on at least one core principle: Social Security money should only be spent on Social Security. Before we can have an honest debate on long-term solutions, we must restore trust with Americans. Stopping the raid will strengthen Social Security and is the first step toward long-term reform. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security and the subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship be authorized to meet to conduct a joint hearing on ``The Southern Border in Crisis: Resources and Strategies to Improve National Security'' on Tuesday, June 7, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. in Dirksen 226.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Retirement Security and Aging, be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 7, 2005 at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 7, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a mark-up.

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 Tuesday, June 7, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on China.

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 Tuesday, June 7, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday June 7, 2005, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``Preventing the Next Pension Collapse: Lessons from the United Airlines Case''.

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 7, 2005, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``International Monetary Fund Oversight.''

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 June 7, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the Department of Defense Inspector General's Management Accountability Review of the Boeing KC-767A Tanker Program.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 7, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in SD-106. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement: Potential Impacts on the Agriculture and Food Sectors.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, today I introduce the Secret Ballot Protection Act, a measure that would amend the National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, to ensure the right of employees to a secret ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, when deciding whether to be represented by a labor organization. The legislation would prohibit a union from being recognized based on a ``card check'' campaign. Under a card check system, a union gathers authorization cards purportedly signed by workers expressing their desire for the union to represent them. By their very nature, card checks strip employees of the right to choose freely, safely, and anonymously, whether to unionize and leave them open to harassment, intimidation, and union pressure. The bill also addresses the increasing pressure faced by employers from union bosses to recognize unions based on a card check campaign and forego the customary secret ballot election supervised by the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, which gives workers the ability to vote their conscience without fear of reprisal. Under current law, employers may voluntarily recognize unions based on these card checks, but are not required to do so. However, threats, boycotts, and other forms of public pressure are increasingly being used to force employers to recognize unions based on a card-check rather than the customary secret ballot election. The need for legislation to protect workers' rights could not be more clear. It is no secret that hostile campaigns against American businesses to discredit employers have become a key organizing tactic used by union bosses across the country. These and other pressure tactics are often designed to hurt employers, their workers, and the economy, unless the demands of union leaders are met. It is wrong that union bosses are using these types of tactics at the expense of secret ballot elections, depriving rank-and-file workers of the ability to freely vote their conscience without fear of retaliation. The Secret Ballot Protection Act will preserve the integrity of workers' freedom of choice and the right to a secret ballot election; it will protect workers from fear, threats, misinformation, and coercion by a union or coworkers to sign union authorization cards; and it will eliminate a union's ability to coercively terrorize an employer into recognition under duress. These fundamental protections can be achieved by simply requiring unions to win a majority of worker support in an anonymous, secret ballot election which eliminates the shroud of union intimidation tactics. Supporting the right to a private vote and outlawing the corrupt card check practice of allowing union thugs to bully, harass, and scare workers who object to union membership is absolutely critical to democracy and freedom of choice. Secret ballots are an absolutely essential ingredient for any functioning democratic system. The lack of secret ballot elections is how oppressive regimes manage to stay in power without majority support. Repelling such oppression hinges on the ability to walk into a voting booth, pull the curtain, and vote for anyone or anything we please with confidence the vote will be counted but never revealed to anyone who could use the knowledge to retaliate. Evidence clearly demonstrates that secret ballot elections are more accurate indicators than card checks of whether employees actually wish to be recognized by a union. Numerous court decisions echo this fact. For example, in the case NLRB v. S.S. Logan Packing Co., the court said: It would be difficult to imagine a more unreliable method of ascertaining the real wishes of employees than a card check, unless it were an employer's request for an open show of hands. The one is no more reliable than the other. There is no question that card checks leave employees open to harassment, intimidation, and union pressure. Workers' democratic rights should be protected, and the Secret Ballot Protection Act will make sure that happens by preserving the secret ballot election process. This important measure would guarantee workers the right to an anonymous, secret ballot election conducted by the NLRB and eliminate the use of intimidation and threats by organizers to coerce workers into joining a union. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, today I introduce the Secret Ballot Protection Act, a measure that would amend the National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, to ensure the right of employees to a secret ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, when deciding whether to be represented by a labor organization. The legislation would prohibit a union from being recognized based on a ``card check'' campaign. Under a card check system, a union gathers authorization cards purportedly signed by workers expressing their desire for the union to represent them. By their very nature, card checks strip employees of the right to choose freely, safely, and anonymously, whether to unionize and leave them open to harassment, intimidation, and union pressure. The bill also addresses the increasing pressure faced by employers from union bosses to recognize unions based on a card check campaign and forego the customary secret ballot election supervised by the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, which gives workers the ability to vote their conscience without fear of reprisal. Under current law, employers may voluntarily recognize unions based on these card checks, but are not required to do so. However, threats, boycotts, and other forms of public pressure are increasingly being used to force employers to recognize unions based on a card-check rather than the customary secret ballot election. The need for legislation to protect workers' rights could not be more clear. It is no secret that hostile campaigns against American businesses to discredit employers have become a key organizing tactic used by union bosses across the country. These and other pressure tactics are often designed to hurt employers, their workers, and the economy, unless the demands of union leaders are met. It is wrong that union bosses are using these types of tactics at the expense of secret ballot elections, depriving rank-and-file workers of the ability to freely vote their conscience without fear of retaliation. The Secret Ballot Protection Act will preserve the integrity of workers' freedom of choice and the right to a secret ballot election; it will protect workers from fear, threats, misinformation, and coercion by a union or coworkers to sign union authorization cards; and it will eliminate a union's ability to coercively terrorize an employer into recognition under duress. These fundamental protections can be achieved by simply requiring unions to win a majority of worker support in an anonymous, secret ballot election which eliminates the shroud of union intimidation tactics. Supporting the right to a private vote and outlawing the corrupt card check practice of allowing union thugs to bully, harass, and scare workers who object to union membership is absolutely critical to democracy and freedom of choice. Secret ballots are an absolutely essential ingredient for any functioning democratic system. The lack of secret ballot elections is how oppressive regimes manage to stay in power without majority support. Repelling such oppression hinges on the ability to walk into a voting booth, pull the curtain, and vote for anyone or anything we please with confidence the vote will be counted but never revealed to anyone who could use the knowledge to retaliate. Evidence clearly demonstrates that secret ballot elections are more accurate indicators than card checks of whether employees actually wish to be recognized by a union. Numerous court decisions echo this fact. For example, in the case NLRB v. S.S. Logan Packing Co., the court said: It would be difficult to imagine a more unreliable method of ascertaining the real wishes of employees than a card check, unless it were an employer's request for an open show of hands. The one is no more reliable than the other. There is no question that card checks leave employees open to harassment, intimidation, and union pressure. Workers' democratic rights should be protected, and the Secret Ballot Protection Act will make sure that happens by preserving the secret ballot election process. This important measure would guarantee workers the right to an anonymous, secret ballot election conducted by the NLRB and eliminate the use of intimidation and threats by organizers to coerce workers into joining a union. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Health Care Choice Act of 2005, a bill that would help Americans afford health insurance. Approximately 45 million Americans lack health insurance. These uninsured Americans face significant hurdles in entering the insurance marketplace, including limited choices of insurers and inflexible benefit options. For most, the high cost of health insurance is the biggest impediment to getting coverage. In fact, nearly two-thirds of the uninsured are the working poor, and they cite the high cost of insurance as the primary barrier to accessing health coverage. The cost of insurance is often increased by excessive State regulations. These State mandates raise the cost of insurance which, in turn, increases the number of Americans who are priced out of the health insurance market. The Health Care Choice Act will allow consumers to shop for health insurance the same way they do for other insurance products--online, by mail, over the phone, or in consultation with an insurance agent in their hometown. The Act empowers consumers by giving them the ability to purchase an affordable health insurance policy with a range of options. Consumers will no longer be limited to picking only those policies that meet their state's regulations and mandated benefits. Instead, they can examine the wide array of insurance policies qualified in one State and offered for sale in multiple states. Consumers can choose the policy that best suits their needs, and their budget, without regard to State boundaries. Individuals looking for basic health insurance coverage can opt for a policy with few benefit mandates, and such a policy will be more affordable. On the other hand, consumers who have an interest in a particular benefit, such as infertility treatments, will be able to purchase a policy which includes that benefit. The Health Care Choice Act will help the uninsured find affordable health insurance, while also providing every American with more and better health insurance choices. The bill harnesses the power of the marketplace to allow Americans to tailor their insurance choices to their individual needs. I am grateful to Congressman Shadegg for introducing the Health Care Choice Act in the House today, and I urge my Senate colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, in January of this year, I stood in this very Chamber, placed one hand on the Bible, and raised the other hand. In taking my oath of office, I made a simple pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. However, only 4 months later--because of the partisanship of some--I am prevented from fulfilling my oath. It is interesting to observe what the Constitution requires of the Senate and what it does not. Nowhere does it say that Congress must pass new laws. But it does specify Senators must ``advise and consent'' on the President's judicial nominees. How can I perform my constitutionally mandated duties to advise and consent without the ability to vote on the nominees sent to us by the President? How can I represent the people of South Carolina, who elected me to serve their interests, without the ability to vote yes or no? Today, 41 Senators are preventing a bipartisan majority from carrying out the duty we were elected to fulfill. This is outrageous. The President of the United States is given the authority, under the Constitution, to choose his own nominees. We have an obligation to vote on those nominees. Forty-one Senators are trying to thwart the will of the American people and the Constitution. Beginning in 2003, Democrats used the filibuster to block up-or-down votes on 10 nominations to the Federal appeals courts. All had bipartisan, majority support. Do not be fooled by the misinformation of a few. Never in history has a judicial nominee with clear majority support been denied confirmation due to a filibuster. Throughout my campaign, and each time I have been home this year, folks in South Carolina have told me how furious they are that the President's nominees are being denied a vote. Democrats have chosen to throw 200 years of tradition out the window by refusing to give judicial nominees a vote, and Americans are simply tired of the partisan obstruction. Before I was elected, I said the Senate had become a ``graveyard of good ideas'' due to partisan liberal obstruction. Unfortunately, it has now become a ``graveyard of good nominees,'' such as Janice Rogers Brown. California Supreme Court Justice Brown was nominated to the DC Circuit by President Bush in 2003. The first African American to serve on the California high court, Justice Brown received public support from 76 percent of California voters and is widely respected as a leading intellect on the bench. She has been unanimously voted as ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association, which has been described by those who oppose her nomination as the ``gold standard'' of judicial ratings. The daughter of sharecroppers, Justice Brown was born in Greenville, AL, in 1949. During her childhood, she attended segregated schools and came of age in the midst of Jim Crow policies in the South. She has dedicated 24 years to public service, serving as legal affairs secretary to California Governor Pete Wilson; deputy secretary and general counsel for the California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency; deputy attorney general in the Office of the California Attorney General; and as deputy legislative counsel in the California Legislative Counsel Bureau. Just what is it that opponents of Justice Brown claim is their reason to deny her a fair vote? They obviously could not attack her experience or her character or her education or her intelligence, which are all impeccable. Instead, they have used the political equivalent of a desperate ``Hail Mary Pass.'' They labeled Justice Brown as ``out of the mainstream.'' Really? Out of the mainstream? Were three-quarters of Californians out of the mainstream when they elected her overwhelmingly to the State supreme court? She was elected by the largest margin of any of the judges up for retention that year. Despite the claims of her opponents, her record demonstrates a commitment to interpreting the law, not legislating from the bench. If the obstructionist Senators who are vehemently opposed to her nomination feel so strongly that she is out of the mainstream, then they should put their money where their mouth is and come down to this floor and make their arguments against her nomination, then allow all of us to draw our own conclusions and cast our vote. If Justice Brown is so truly unqualified, then surely her opponents would be confident of convincing a majority that this is the case. Otherwise, they are simply smearing the integrity of a highly respected jurist in order to score political points against the President at the expense of vandalizing the Constitution. One of my goals as a Senator is to confirm highly qualified judges by ensuring timely up-or-down votes for all nominees no matter who is President, no matter which party is in the majority. That is my commitment, and I have encouraged Senator Frist to consider all options, including the constitutional option, to end the undemocratic blockade of judicial nominees. Senators were elected to advise and consent, not to grandstand and obstruct. I would like to say something to my colleagues across the aisle. There is a reason George W. Bush was elected to serve as President of the United States. It is because the majority of Americans trusted him to nominate judges. There is a reason the American people elected a majority of Republicans to the Senate. They trusted our judgment to vote on judicial nominees. There is a reason the Democratic Party is in the minority in Congress. It is because the American people did not trust them to make these decisions. It is not a trivial matter. The issue of judicial nominations was at the forefront of every Senate campaign in the last two cycles. Voters across our Nation witnessed the obstruction of the Democrats over the last 4 years, and they rendered their judgment at the polls. In 2002, they returned the Republicans to the majority in the Senate. Then, after 2 years of unprecedented and, in my opinion, unconstitutional denials of simple votes on judicial nominees, Americans elected an even larger majority of Republicans. In fact, the Democrat leader, former Senator Tom Daschle, was defeated by my colleague, Senator John Thune, in large part due to his high-profile obstruction of judicial nominees. In my own campaign, I spoke frequently about the need to give every nominee a fair up-or-down vote. It was consistently the main issue voters brought up with me one-on-one. Now that the American people have clearly spoken, by democratically electing a Republican President and a Republican majority in the Senate, 41 Senators are attempting to deny the will of the people. Forty-one Senators believe they know better than the majority of Americans. Forty-one Senators seem to think the elections and constitutional duties we have do not matter. What matters to these 41 Senators is petty partisan politics. This temper tantrum must end. The Democrats must accept the judgment of the American people. They cannot disregard election results simply because things did not go their way. Now let me speak to my own party's leadership. It is time for the Republican Party to lead, as Americans have elected us to do. We were not sent to the Senate as a majority to quibble about process and procedure. We were entrusted to carry out the duties laid out in the Constitution. We ran on a platform of ideas to secure America's future, and the Nation largely agreed with our vision. We also ran on the need to give the President's nominees a fair up-or-down vote. The Senate Republican majority must stand up for the Americans who elected us. We must have the courage and conviction to uphold the Constitution and end the partisan obstruction. The time to act is now. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Health Care Choice Act of 2005, a bill that would help Americans afford health insurance. Approximately 45 million Americans lack health insurance. These uninsured Americans face significant hurdles in entering the insurance marketplace, including limited choices of insurers and inflexible benefit options. For most, the high cost of health insurance is the biggest impediment to getting coverage. In fact, nearly two-thirds of the uninsured are the working poor, and they cite the high cost of insurance as the primary barrier to accessing health coverage. The cost of insurance is often increased by excessive State regulations. These State mandates raise the cost of insurance which, in turn, increases the number of Americans who are priced out of the health insurance market. The Health Care Choice Act will allow consumers to shop for health insurance the same way they do for other insurance products--online, by mail, over the phone, or in consultation with an insurance agent in their hometown. The Act empowers consumers by giving them the ability to purchase an affordable health insurance policy with a range of options. Consumers will no longer be limited to picking only those policies that meet their state's regulations and mandated benefits. Instead, they can examine the wide array of insurance policies qualified in one State and offered for sale in multiple states. Consumers can choose the policy that best suits their needs, and their budget, without regard to State boundaries. Individuals looking for basic health insurance coverage can opt for a policy with few benefit mandates, and such a policy will be more affordable. On the other hand, consumers who have an interest in a particular benefit, such as infertility treatments, will be able to purchase a policy which includes that benefit. The Health Care Choice Act will help the uninsured find affordable health insurance, while also providing every American with more and better health insurance choices. The bill harnesses the power of the marketplace to allow Americans to tailor their insurance choices to their individual needs. I am grateful to Congressman Shadegg for introducing the Health Care Choice Act in the House today, and I urge my Senate colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.