Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Truth in Employment Act, a bill I previously introduced in the House of Representatives to stem the harm done to companies by salting, a union tactic that is causing material economic damage to small businesses everyday in this country. There is a basic disagreement over the definition of salting. While union supporters and the NLRB have defined the term as the ``placing of union members on non-union job sites for the purpose of organizing,'' it has been widely documented that the true motivation of many salts is simply to increase the cost of doing business for non-union contractors, regardless of the wishes of the employer's bona fide employees. Salting is much more than someone seeking employment for the purpose of union organizing. It is an attempt to interfere with business operations, harass employees, and cause economic harm through illegal activities and frivolous legal complaints against employers. Union organizers who fail to convince employees to organize will use salting to shut down non-union companies, often going to extreme lengths, including preventing deliveries to job sites and destroying building supplies. In my own State of South Carolina, salting has resulted in the loss of hundreds of jobs. In Sumter, South Carolina, the Yuasa Exide battery plant was targeted by a union. Union salts infiltrated the plant, and when employees there did not unionize, the union retaliated by sabotaging product, causing work slow downs, making verbal threats and threatening phone calls, and putting nails in people's tires. Union leaders threatened to shut down the plant and they did just that. Six hundred and fifty people were laid off because the Yuasa Exide plant could not afford the increased cost to the business of defending itself and its employees from the union salting campaign. Yuasa Exide, which was the first tenant in Sumter's industrial park, had been there since 1965 and provided high-tech, good-paying jobs in a rural area, was forced to close its doors because of salting. The impacts of salting are felt by many. Companies see increased costs from having to defend themselves against labor relations complaints as well as lost hours of productivity from having to fight these charges. Consumers are impacted by salting when they experience increased costs and higher prices. Moreover, Federal agencies spend untold sums to investigate claims that are later found to be without merit, forcing taxpayers to effectively subsidize union activity. To put it bluntly, salting is a job killer. At a time when we are working in Congress to enact policies which will spur job growth and ensure future economic prosperity, salting abuses stand directly in the way of these goals. We can no longer allow American jobs to suffer at the hands of Washington labor bosses. To prevent salting abuses from causing more harm to employers, I am introducing the Truth in Employment Act which amends section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to make clear that an employer is not required to hire any person who seeks a job in order to promote interests unrelated to those of the employer. This bill in no way infringes upon any rights or protections otherwise accorded employees under the NLRA. Employees will continue to enjoy their right to organize. The bill merely seeks to alleviate the legal pressures imposed upon employers to hire individuals whose overriding purpose for seeking the job is to disrupt the employer's workplace or otherwise inflict economic harm designed to put the employer out of business. This bill in no way infringes upon any rights or protections otherwise accorded employees under the NLRA, or any other employment statute. 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 Truth in Employment Act, a bill I previously introduced in the House of Representatives to stem the harm done to companies by salting, a union tactic that is causing material economic damage to small businesses everyday in this country. There is a basic disagreement over the definition of salting. While union supporters and the NLRB have defined the term as the ``placing of union members on non-union job sites for the purpose of organizing,'' it has been widely documented that the true motivation of many salts is simply to increase the cost of doing business for non-union contractors, regardless of the wishes of the employer's bona fide employees. Salting is much more than someone seeking employment for the purpose of union organizing. It is an attempt to interfere with business operations, harass employees, and cause economic harm through illegal activities and frivolous legal complaints against employers. Union organizers who fail to convince employees to organize will use salting to shut down non-union companies, often going to extreme lengths, including preventing deliveries to job sites and destroying building supplies. In my own State of South Carolina, salting has resulted in the loss of hundreds of jobs. In Sumter, South Carolina, the Yuasa Exide battery plant was targeted by a union. Union salts infiltrated the plant, and when employees there did not unionize, the union retaliated by sabotaging product, causing work slow downs, making verbal threats and threatening phone calls, and putting nails in people's tires. Union leaders threatened to shut down the plant and they did just that. Six hundred and fifty people were laid off because the Yuasa Exide plant could not afford the increased cost to the business of defending itself and its employees from the union salting campaign. Yuasa Exide, which was the first tenant in Sumter's industrial park, had been there since 1965 and provided high-tech, good-paying jobs in a rural area, was forced to close its doors because of salting. The impacts of salting are felt by many. Companies see increased costs from having to defend themselves against labor relations complaints as well as lost hours of productivity from having to fight these charges. Consumers are impacted by salting when they experience increased costs and higher prices. Moreover, Federal agencies spend untold sums to investigate claims that are later found to be without merit, forcing taxpayers to effectively subsidize union activity. To put it bluntly, salting is a job killer. At a time when we are working in Congress to enact policies which will spur job growth and ensure future economic prosperity, salting abuses stand directly in the way of these goals. We can no longer allow American jobs to suffer at the hands of Washington labor bosses. To prevent salting abuses from causing more harm to employers, I am introducing the Truth in Employment Act which amends section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to make clear that an employer is not required to hire any person who seeks a job in order to promote interests unrelated to those of the employer. This bill in no way infringes upon any rights or protections otherwise accorded employees under the NLRA. Employees will continue to enjoy their right to organize. The bill merely seeks to alleviate the legal pressures imposed upon employers to hire individuals whose overriding purpose for seeking the job is to disrupt the employer's workplace or otherwise inflict economic harm designed to put the employer out of business. This bill in no way infringes upon any rights or protections otherwise accorded employees under the NLRA, or any other employment statute. 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 to speak for 3 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today with bittersweet news for my home State. One of South Carolina's most distinguished native sons, State House Speaker David Wilkins, has been nominated by President George W. Bush to be the United States Ambassador to Canada. I just spoke with David this morning, and let him know that while we are sad to lose his leadership, we are extremely proud of his appointment. Both David and I are natives of Greenville, SC, and graduates of Clemson University and have been friends for a long time. I have long admired his courage and determination to fight for family values and individual freedom. He also possesses a keen understanding of the need to create an economic environment that gives businesses and workers a chance to thrive. In addition to the talents David brings to this position, his greatest help will come from his lovely wife Susan, who represents the best of South Carolina. Together they have raised two fine sons, James and Robert. Speaker Wilkins is a legendary public servant. He has served in the South Carolina State House of Representatives since 1981 and led as Speaker for more than a decade. David is widely respected by all parties for good reason, because he works passionately to better the lives of all South Carolinians. The President could not have chosen a better man, and he will represent our nation well. I look forward to welcoming David to Washington for his confirmation hearings. I promised him I would work hard to make sure my colleagues know of his exceptional abilities that make him more than qualified for this job He enjoys the full confidence of the President of the United States, and the support of South Carolinians. I am sure he will have no problem being confirmed quickly, so he can begin working on behalf of all Americans.

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to address the current institutional crisis in the Senate brought on by the insistence of a few on defeating the will of the American people in preventing the Senate from doing its job of voting on the President's nominees to the Federal bench. We all know that the Constitution is very clear on this front. The judicial nominees are chosen solely by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Until President Bush was elected, no one has ever interpreted this requirement to mean anything other than a simple majority vote. The Senate has never denied an up-or-down vote to any appellate court nominee who had majority support. But the Democrats have rejected this 200-year-old Senate tradition and, with it, the very will of the American people. The Democrats lost the election, and they seem unwilling to accept the fact. Instead, they unilaterally change the rules and politicize the judicial confirmation process. This is extreme behavior and extreme tactics--threatening to shut down the Senate if we should dare to confirm a well-qualified nominee with bipartisan majority support. This is an epitome of arrogance--assuming they know better than the majority of their colleagues and the President. The people back home want to see these nominees treated fairly and given an up-or-down vote. Is it fair to say to nominees that they are out of the mainstream when they have the support of the Democrats and the Republicans making up the majority of the Senate? I submit it is the obstructionists who are out of the mainstream when they block an up-or-down vote on nominations of justices such as Janice Rogers Brown for years. Extreme, arrogant, out of the mainstream--this is the anything-goes Senate Democrats who are willing to go to any length to deny exemplary judges the opportunity to dedicate their lives to service to the American people. By trying to shred the reputation of some of the most respected and admired judges in public service in this country, a few Senators are sending a very powerful message to any others who may aspire to the bench. They are telling us, don't bother. It appears to be increasingly likely that such talent, dedication, and personal sacrifice will be rewarded with attacks on the floor of the Senate and years of uncertainty while a bipartisan majority waits powerless to confirm these nominees. I call for a return to tradition. The American people have done their jobs and expect us to do the same. We in the Senate need to do our jobs and confirm fair judges through a fair process. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. An excellent question. Those are legal obligations of the Federal Government which we have to honor. But the Supreme Court has said Americans have no legal right to a Social Security benefit. It is not their money. They don't own it. Unfortunately, the Social Security trust fund could not write one check to a Social Security retiree today. There is no money. The only place the money can come from for the trust fund is if it comes back from the general fund to the trust fund. In other words, these cash deficits that we have talked about are the money that has to come out of the General Treasury, out of our education fund, our transportation fund, out of our military, in order to pay these IOUs that are in this so-called trust fund. And we don't have the money to do that. And the talk of tax cuts hurting the Social Security trust fund, I am afraid, is ridiculous. The money was all being spent anyway. If we had not had a tax cut, more would have been spent. This year there is $75 billion in a Social Security surplus that we are spending. My question to the Senator is, would the Senator support a proposal that actually saved the Social Security trust fund--that is all we do-- save the money that is surplus between now and the time that runs out in 2017--and that is when the program is in trouble because that is when we have to start pulling money out of the general fund. But my question to both of my Democratic colleagues is, would they support a proposal to save the Social Security surplus today?

Mr. DeMINT. Thank you again. I have enjoyed this tonight. Our talk, I guess, has gone in some interesting directions. My opinion is that Social Security is now too expensive to be just an insurance policy. When Americans paid $60 a year when the program started, yes, maybe it was an insurance policy. But today, with Americans averaging over $5,000 a year, for many it is their only savings plan. We cannot assume that the average American can save, after we take 12.5 percent of their income, additional money for retirement. We have to transform Social Security into a program that is not only secure but helps people create real savings to build a foundation of the program. We are as committed to Social Security as you are. In fact, we wouldn't be here talking today if Social Security was secure. In fact, we see that it is running out of money, and the best way to fix it is to save some of the money that we are putting into Social Security. I know there are plans that don't put people at risk because I have one and several other Republicans do. The plan I have introduced, which has been scored by the Social Security Administration, guarantees that no American will ever receive less from Social Security than is promised by the current system. It gives the poor larger accounts. It reduces the deficit for Social Security by two-thirds. It is a program that makes every American a saver and investor. In this country today, with so many Americans who do not own anything, the opportunity to own something, and for that ownership to grow in wealth so that they can participate in a country as our economy flourishes, this is what Social Security can be in the future--just as secure, but it can contain real savings for the first time. That is all we are asking today. Let's not cut benefits. We don't want to cut benefits. Let's not raise taxes. The problem with Social Security is that the foundation does not include real savings, and that is what we are proposing. Let's save Social Security with real savings.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I appreciate the question because I actually do have a proposal. The fact is, if you add personal savings within the current system, you do fix the system permanently. The example on this chart is while right now the traditional benefits are paying 100 percent of our promise, and Social Security is a promise we need to keep--Republicans are committed to it, and the President is, and that is why we are looking at this house that is on a cliff. We want to figure out how to build a foundation that will keep it there for our children and grandchildren. But if we allow personal accounts to work with the traditional system, when we get out to the year 2045, we not only have a permanently solvent system, we have one that is completely funded. In other words, it would meet the legal criteria of pension plans today. I think all of my colleagues know that if corporate America asked us to set up a plan such as Social Security where we take workers' money today, we spend it all, and then we try to pay benefits out of future revenues, we would say no and we would probably put them in jail. The plans we are talking about eliminate risks. They guarantee a future benefit and they are slanted toward giving the poor a better deal than they have had under the current system. We can design a Social Security system with personal accounts that eliminate risk and help the poor more than this current program and make the program permanently solvent. My question back to the Senator would be, if the Senator is not for personal accounts--and I guess if the Senator is thinking the trust fund is going to pay benefits after 2017 even though last week the Social Security actuaries in their report said in 2017 payroll taxes will no longer be enough to pay promised benefits, so we will have to start pulling money from the general fund--my question to the Senator is if the Senator does not want to put personal accounts into the system, which we continue to stress we are not taking money out, we are adding new money to the Social Security system, we are saving it in personal accounts, we are welding it to the traditional system so that it will be stronger in the future, how is the Senator going to fix Social Security and pay benefits in 2018?

Mr. DeMINT. That is what the Supreme Court----

Mr. DeMINT. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleagues as well. This is a great opportunity to discuss such an important program. I appreciate all three of my colleagues who have spoken who have stressed how important it is that we keep the promise of Social Security. We have heard a lot of numbers and different information. If I could, I would like to try to make it a little simpler so at least I could understand it. I am reminded, as I hear some of the information, of a TV commercial I have seen that the AARP has sponsored. Some of you may have seen that commercial. The Presiding Officer may have seen it as well. In the commercial they have a wrecking ball that is tearing down a house and a Caterpillar tractor tearing down the walls and a family fleeing, and they are saying: This is what the President is trying to do to our Social Security system, to tear it down completely when all it takes is a few simple adjustments. I think the real truth here is the house is more like one I saw on the news during the rains and the mud slides in California: a beautiful big house sitting on the mountainside, and from the front it looked perfect. It was perfect in the inside. The roof was perfect. It did not leak. But when you looked around the back, from the air with a helicopter, you could see that half of the foundation had been washed away, and it was precariously perched there on the side of the mountain. But it looked perfect from the front. A few hours later they showed a clip from the air where the whole house went down the side of the mountain. Unfortunately, what we have happening today is we have a Social Security program that has worked, and it looks good, just like that house, but the foundations have been eroded for many years, and we are coming to the point where we have to rebuild those foundations. I appreciate what the President is doing. This President has been willing to confront the most difficult issues of our generation. He has confronted terrorism head on. He is the world leader now in exporting freedom and democracy. He has taken the education issue on, recognizing we were leaving children behind, and made it more accountable. He saw that seniors were not able to buy prescriptions, and he has worked with the Congress to make sure they could. He sees that Social Security is like the house on the cliff and that we need to fix it. Now, I am afraid my Democrat colleagues and the AARP and some other groups are still showing people around the house and telling them it looks fine. And it does. But, folks, the real truth is, the foundation of our Social Security system has been eroded. The President is trying to show us the truth, that we need to rebuild the foundation. Senator Santorum painted a clear picture. The foundation of our current Social Security system was based on a lot of workers and few retirees, a lot of workers putting in $60 or less a year. Today, we have the average family putting in over $5,000 a year. The problem with that foundation and why it is being washed away by today's demographics is there is no savings. We have not saved 1 penny. Even though the average American family puts in over $5,000--some dual-income families over $15,000 a year--we are not saving any money in the Social Security system. I am afraid while the trust fund is a nice idea, it is no more real than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. The President today pointed out that the trust fund is simply a file cabinet with a bookkeeping record of how much the Federal Government has borrowed from Social Security. This money was being borrowed before our tax cuts. It is being borrowed today. This year, there is $75 billion in Social Security surpluses. It is being spent. And if we had not had the tax cuts, it would have all been spent because there is no way in our current Social Security system to save real money. That is all the President is talking about, rebuilding the foundation of our Social Security system with real savings. And that is what we are trying to do. I will put up a chart. I want to point something out that is very important. So much has been said that we are taking money out of the Social Security system. But what we are doing with personal accounts is welding them to the current Social Security system. As you will see with the first bar on the chart, this year, in 2005, all of the benefits to today's retirees are being paid from the current system. But what we are proposing, since the current system is running out of money, is to begin to add personal savings within the Social Security system. By 2025, over half of the benefits that will be paid-- and it is important to see that the benefits will be the same--will be paid in part by personal savings and in part by the traditional system. Now, by the time my children retire, in 2045, all of the benefits will be paid from a funded Social Security system, from real savings, and people will actually get better benefits in the future than they do today. Let me point out on a second chart, it is important to recognize no money is going out of the system. It is all part of a system that has a new foundation of real savings. This is something we require of every corporation in the country that offers a pension plan, that they have real money in it. That is what we need to do to Social Security. One of the benefits of this--in addition to structuring a program where we can guarantee benefits; we don't change disability; survivors benefits can be even better--is the average American worker, if you look at 2035, average median income at 35, it is already close to $400,000 that they can work with their current system. The benefit there is that if you die before you are 65 instead of today when you have nothing, it is left to your heirs. It is part of your estate. More people can inherit wealth. We can continue to talk about this as we go through the questions and answers.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, my amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that if we do nothing as a body to address the Social Security issue, it will result in massive debt, benefit cuts for future retirees, as well as large payroll tax increases. The big question today, and the difference in my amendment and another amendment, is whether we need to address it now or push this off until 2042. It is clear by any measure, if we look at what the Social Security actuaries are saying, that in 2018 we will begin to move billions of dollars from the general fund to support Social Security benefits. The time to act for Social Security change and reform to save and strengthen Social Security is now, and we can do that best by beginning to save the Social Security surplus and to save part of what people are putting into the Social Security system. I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment, which simply says if we do nothing, the American people will pay for generations. This amendment is deciding whether we are proposing something for the next election or the next generation.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I am encouraged by the debate today that recognizes, as we consider our budget, that Social Security and its future is an important part of budget considerations. My amendment today recognizes that if we do nothing with Social Security, which seems to be the intent of some in this Chamber, that will only result in deep benefit cuts or massive increases in debt, and a failure to act now will result in not keeping our promise to today's and tomorrow's seniors. We need to address the challenge of Social Security. It is first a promise we must keep. Those who suggest that we need to cut benefits on today's seniors or even tomorrow's workers should consider the promise we made to seniors. Those who suggest that we do not have a problem with Social Security until the year 2042 do not recognize the facts that our own Social Security Administration is giving us year after year. We can see clearly that the current level of payroll taxes that comes from our workers' paychecks every month will fund Social Security as it is today only through the year 2018. After 2018, the amount of money that will be required in addition to payroll taxes increases dramatically through 2079, and continues to grow beyond that day. I think it is inconceivable that in this Chamber today people are telling us we can push this problem down to the next generation and not address it. What will happen under current law with Social Security, if we continue along the same road we are traveling today, is in 2018 we will begin to pull massive amounts of money from our general fund, taking money from our defense, from our education system, from our road system, and many of the Nation's priorities will have to move from the general fund to keep promised benefits to seniors. Beyond this point, we will continue to redeem the IOUs in the Social Security trust fund. I want to get back to the trust fund in a minute because I am afraid those who still believe there is money in the trust fund probably still believe there is a Santa Claus. But if we use all the IOUs in this trust fund, what will happen in this year that is talked about on this floor today is in 2042 under current Social Security law, benefits for tomorrow's retirees will be cut by over 125 percent in order to be paid for by payroll taxes. The call by our President and many of the leadership on the Republican side now to address this issue today is to avoid this cut in benefits in the future. It is unfair to tell the young workers of today that if they continue to pay into their Social Security benefits through their payroll taxes they will get a Social Security benefit equal to those receiving it today. It is, frankly, not true. I believe we can reform and save and strengthen our Social Security system without cutting benefits, and without raising payroll taxes. In fact, I believe it is the responsibility of this Senate, this Congress, and this President to do exactly that. There are bills that have been proposed that will begin to say what people save, what people are putting into Social Security, not taking money out of Social Security but to save the money that is going into Social Security for tomorrow's workers. If we only today began the process of saving the current Social Security surplus--let me address that quickly--for the next 13 years or so, which this line here represents, this year it is like $100 billion of money that is coming in for Social Security that is being spent on other programs. If all we did until 2018 was to save the Social Security surplus within the Social Security system, we would create a stronger Social Security system that has real savings in it. The problem with Social Security today is not that taxes are too low, or that benefits are too high, but the problem with Social Security is we have been taking money from workers for years and not saving it. We have been spending it on other things. Now the general fund owes the Social Security system well over $1 trillion. The proposal by the President, and by many in the House and the Senate today, is to begin to save part of what people are putting into Social Security, allow that money to earn interest, compound interest, and to grow so that over a period of years we will transform Social Security from a political promise with nothing but IOUs into a secure and a guaranteed retirement income for tomorrow's seniors. My amendment does something very simple. It recognizes that if we do what has been proposed by many today, that we ignore Social Security, that we push it to the next generation, it will result in either significant benefit cuts or massive, large increases in payroll taxes or huge transfers from our general fund, which will affect many of the Nation's other priorities. It is a simple request to ask my colleagues to recognize the problem. I appreciate the President's efforts to tell the American people we have a problem that needs to be solved. I appreciate his willingness to consider saving Social Security by saving payroll taxes that are being paid already by workers. I ask for consideration of this amendment. I believe it is important for the American people to know that doing nothing to address Social Security will hurt every American and will hurt our country as a whole. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce ``Holly's Law,'' a bill that would suspend FDA's approval of RU-486 and direct the GAO to conduct an independent review of the process used by the FDA to approve the drug. Holly's Law is named in memory of Holly Patterson, an 18-year old woman who died after taking the drug in 2003. RU-486 has killed three women in the United States and many more have been hospitalized with a severe bacterial infection known as septic shock. RU-486 was approved by the FDA in September of 2000. The FDA approved RU-486 under a special ``restricted distribution'' approval process known as ``Subpart H,'' reserved only for drugs that treat ``severe or life-threatening illnesses,'' like cancer and AIDS. Subpart H allows an expedited approval of certain drugs by not subjecting them to the testing and review standards required of all other new drugs. These are important tests necessary to determine the safety and long-term effects of a drug. Clearly, the fact that these tests were not done on RU-486 was a damaging omission considering the death and illness associated with use of the drug. Due to the serious threat RU-486 poses to women's health, we are asking that Congress suspend FDA's approval of RU-486 until the GAO can provide a report on whether RU-486 should have been deemed ``safe and effective'' by the FDA. I am grateful to Senators Allen, Brownback, Coburn, Ensign, Enzi, Inhofe, Santorum and Vitter who have joined me as original cosponsors of this bill. They understand that RU-486 is a dangerous drug that cannot remain on the market while more women die. I urge my colleagues to support Holly's Law to take RU-486 off the market before more women are harmed by it. 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 reintroduce ``Holly's Law,'' a bill that would suspend FDA's approval of RU-486 and direct the GAO to conduct an independent review of the process used by the FDA to approve the drug. Holly's Law is named in memory of Holly Patterson, an 18-year old woman who died after taking the drug in 2003. RU-486 has killed three women in the United States and many more have been hospitalized with a severe bacterial infection known as septic shock. RU-486 was approved by the FDA in September of 2000. The FDA approved RU-486 under a special ``restricted distribution'' approval process known as ``Subpart H,'' reserved only for drugs that treat ``severe or life-threatening illnesses,'' like cancer and AIDS. Subpart H allows an expedited approval of certain drugs by not subjecting them to the testing and review standards required of all other new drugs. These are important tests necessary to determine the safety and long-term effects of a drug. Clearly, the fact that these tests were not done on RU-486 was a damaging omission considering the death and illness associated with use of the drug. Due to the serious threat RU-486 poses to women's health, we are asking that Congress suspend FDA's approval of RU-486 until the GAO can provide a report on whether RU-486 should have been deemed ``safe and effective'' by the FDA. I am grateful to Senators Allen, Brownback, Coburn, Ensign, Enzi, Inhofe, Santorum and Vitter who have joined me as original cosponsors of this bill. They understand that RU-486 is a dangerous drug that cannot remain on the market while more women die. I urge my colleagues to support Holly's Law to take RU-486 off the market before more women are harmed by it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 56.

Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will first debate a disapproval resolution related to a rule submitted by the Department of Agriculture. Following the use or yielding back of the allocated debate time, the Senate will have a series of three stacked votes. Those votes will be on the disapproval resolution, the Dayton amendment, and the Nelson amendment to the bankruptcy bill. The majority leader has stated that we will continue to process additional bankruptcy-related amendments on Thursday, and therefore rollcall votes will occur throughout the day.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 5, which was received from the House.

Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.