Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, this amendment disallows any use of taxpayer money to fund the lawsuit against Arizona for its immigration policy. I hope all my colleagues have taken the time to read this bill because what has been reported on it, in most cases, is false. This bill is very clear. Its intent is to support and enforce the Federal law to protect the citizens of Arizona. Our Federal Government should be doing its job to secure our borders rather than trying to bully and intimidate the people of Arizona. We should not be suing and hassling the people of Arizona for doing what we should be doing here, and that is protecting the citizenry. I encourage all my colleagues to support this amendment to disallow any funding for this lawsuit. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Massachusetts. The blame game has gone on long enough. There is certainly enough blame to go around. But I need to remind the majority that they have been in control of Congress for 4 years. Presidents do not write economic policy, spend money, or add to the debt. Congress does. The Democratic Party has been in control of both Houses since 2006. When the Democrats took control, unemployment was below 5 percent, the economy was growing, and the debt was half of what it is today. Certainly looking at the projected debt of this administration, we are looking at tripling the national debt over the next decade. It is time for us to focus on solving problems rather than trying to wax eloquent about a President who effectively did not write economic policy for over 4 years. It is important today that we are extending unemployment benefits. But it is curious to a lot of us when the majority has often said unemployment compensation is one of the most important forms of stimulus, that when Republicans ask that we pay for the extension of unemployment benefits with unspent stimulus money, there appears to be outrage. Instead, there is a strong consensus on the Democratic side that we not pay for this; we just add it to the national debt. I, frankly, do not think we can help people for a few months by bankrupting our country. We know our debt is unsustainable. To bring up bill after bill that we are not even willing to talk about how we pay for is disturbing to millions of Americans right now. I certainly support my colleague from Massachusetts, as well as my colleague from Oklahoma, who are presenting amendments today, reasonable, commonsense ways that we can pay for the unemployment benefits extension so that helping people today does not diminish the quality of life of millions of Americans tomorrow. Another issue that is going to affect millions of Americans is in just over 5 months tax rates for almost every American who pays taxes is going to go up. It is something that is not talked about, and Republicans are not talking about a tax cut. We are talking about keeping current tax rates the same. A few weeks ago, I offered an amendment that would at least keep capital gains and dividend taxes the same rather than allow them to go up--dividend taxes to nearly 40 percent and capital gains from 15 percent to 20 percent. Many senior citizens count on dividends, as well as cashing in their retirement savings. Capital gains and dividend taxes have a huge impact on our senior citizens as well as millions of other Americans. Unfortunately, the majority voted this amendment down and voted effectively to raise these taxes on Americans. Income taxes will go up. But today I want to focus on what I think is probably the most immoral tax that we impose on people from the Federal level, and that is the death tax. This year, the death tax is gone, the first year since the early 1900s. Americans who work and save, start businesses, start farms, their heirs do not have to sell their property in order to pay the death tax. The Heritage Foundation says if we allow the death tax to go back up to 55 percent, it will cost Americans over 1.5 million jobs because this is not just for the people who pay the death tax, it is for the people who work in the businesses and the farms that are often liquidated or at least sold in part to pay this heavy tax. What right does the government have to take someone's property because they die? They have paid taxes on the property and on the income throughout their entire lives, and many times they paid a very high tax rate if they worked hard and made a good living. What right do we have when they die to take that property? Why should the government get a bigger inheritance from someone dying than their family? That is what is going to happen if we allow the majority to continue with their plans to allow the death tax to go up. This will cost lots of jobs, break up many family businesses and family farms, and cost, as I said, 1.5 million jobs. It makes absolutely no sense at all. I am going to offer an amendment today to keep current tax rates the same for the death tax which was eliminated this year. Another amendment I am going to offer relates to the Arizona immigration law. I took the time to read the immigration law that Arizona passed and found that much of what has been reported in the media is completely false. I was actually stunned as I read through it how often it refers to just the enforcement of existing Federal law. There is nothing in it about racial profiling, except that we cannot do it, and we cannot stop someone if we suspect them of being illegal. We can only ask for documentation if we stop them or arrest them for some other crime. This is, in effect, the Federal law. It is interesting that the Obama administration is suing Arizona for enforcing Federal law while ignoring many sanctuary cities that openly flaunt their resistance to Federal law. It makes no sense in a free country, in a democracy where we are built on the rule of law, for the Federal Government to try to intimidate the people of Arizona who are only trying to protect themselves. As many Americans know, Arizona waited for years for the Federal Government to do its job, to secure the borders, and to protect the people from the drug trafficking, the human trafficking, and the people who come across and who have murdered the citizens there. Many States are suffering the same fate of a Federal Government that has failed to secure our borders and to protect our people. The amendment I am offering today is going to disallow any funding to be used by the Federal Government to carry out this lawsuit against Arizona. This is something we know, if the American people could vote today, they would vote in favor of. The question is, Will the majority vote to support the people of Arizona or to support this political move that we are now seeing from the White House to attempt to intimidate the people of Arizona? I can say proudly that the people of Arizona are not going to be intimidated by this government. If we can provide some help today, that is certainly what I intend to do. Mr. President, I wish to offer a couple of motions. Motion to Suspend In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I move to suspend rule XXII for the purpose of proposing and considering a motion to commit with regard to the estate tax, which is at the desk.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, according to rule V of the standing rules of the Senate, I move to suspend rule XXII for the purpose of proposing and considering a motion to commit with regard to the Arizona immigration law, which is at the desk.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XXII for the purpose of proposing and considering the following Motion to Commit with instructions to the House message with respect to H.R. 4213: Mr. DeMint moves to commit the House Message with respect to H.R. 4213 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the same back forthwith with an amendment as follows: At the appropriate place, insert the following: Sec. __. No funds made available in any provision of law may be used to participate in any lawsuit that seeks to invalidate those provisions of the Arizona Revised Statutes amended by Arizona Senate Bill 1070, 49th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess., Ch. 113 (Az. 6 2010) (as amended by Arizona House Bill 2162, 49th 7 Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess., Ch. 211 (Az. 2010)).

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XXII for the purpose of proposing and considering the following Motion to Commit with instructions to the House message with respect to H.R. 4213: Mr. DeMint moves to commit the House Message with respect to H.R. 4213 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate with changes to include a permanent repeal of the estate and generation-skipping transfer taxes, and to include provisions which decrease spending as appropriate to offset such permanent repeal.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the University of South Carolina men's baseball team for making history by winning the NCAA College World Series last night. Whit Merrifield's clutch hit in the 11th inning brought home the winning run and gave USC its first ever national championship for any men's team at the university. In spite of losing their first game in Omaha, the team persevered through multiple elimination games. They were motivated by the courageous spirit of one young fan, Bayler Teal, who at age 7 may have been the biggest Gamecock fan in America. He suffered from a rare form of cancer and died last Thursday during the Gamecock's come-from-behind victory over Oklahoma. He wore his Gamecock ball cap the day he died. Fortunately, Bayler's parents and 5-year-old brother were able to be in Omaha last night to see the Gamecocks win the final game of the College World Series. So today I join all South Carolinians and Gamcocks fans everywhere to congratulate the players, Coach Ray Tanner, and his staff for an outstanding victory. Now all America knows that USC means the University of South Carolina. Go Gamecocks. First-time Home Buyer Tax Credit Mr. President, I want to speak in objection to the majority's latest attempt to secretly push through another extension of the first-time home buyer tax credit--the third time the Senate has modified or extended this credit since July of 2008, when it was originally included in the majority's Housing and Economic Recovery Act. Home buyer tax credits have several flaws, and I opposed them in the past because I believe they are a temporary infusion of capital into the marketplace and simply increase the government's grip on our Nation's economic growth. As often happens when the government becomes involved in attempting to grow a portion of the Nation's economy, we only create a bubble that will eventually burst. As the National Association of Realtors said in late April, shortly before the expiring of the tax credit on April 30: It is time for the housing market to stand on its own feet. It is time for the government to stop picking winners and losers in the housing market based on arbitrary dates and arbitrary qualifications. For the people who haven't closed on their homes by today, it is not that they won't get their house; it is only that they won't get a taxpayer subsidy for having bought a house now rather than later. This taxpayer subsidy has been funded by their neighbor, who may not have had the opportunity to buy on the government time line. We have watched this majority push through big spending bills and targeted government credits. What we have learned is that government spending does not grow economic prosperity; rather, government spending grows deficits. It creates economic bubbles. Without a doubt, it increases taxes. For 18 months, this majority has created a false sense of hope for consumers and markets while increasing taxes on small businesses and the most productive and hard-working Americans. Rather than creating tax equality and predictability for all Americans, this Congress has tried to force taxpayers to subsidize the purchasing of cars, homes, and even appliances. We know what works. When American businesses have the predictability of low tax rates, they in turn invest in job creation and create real economic growth. The enormous amount of spending this Congress has taken on is unsustainable and will eventually lead to the highest tax increases in our Nation's history. This bill is no different. I ask my colleagues, how many times do we need to extend this home buyer tax credit? What do we tell the people who bought their homes just before it started, and the ones who bought their homes right after it expired? Do we say their mortgage rates will be higher for the whole time they own their home, and their taxes will be paying for their neighbor's home, who happened to buy in the government's window of opportunity? The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has called the home buyer credit ``Washington's worst tax policy idea.'' They have estimated that the $12.6 billion already spent on this program through February created ``close to zero'' jobs and that at least 85 percent of these buyers would have likely purchased a home anyway. Also, the Treasury Department's inspector general found the home buyer credit has been riddled with fraud and chronicled over 14,000 instances of false claims. This is typical of government programs. The report ``found as many as 67 taxpayers using the same home to claim the credit''--the same home. It also found that over 1,000 prisoners received credit for homes they claimed to buy while in jail. How is it fair to subsidize Americans who purchased their first home only because they purchased it on the government's timetable? With this latest extension of the credit, the majority is not only cutting defense spending to fund the credits, but now it is admitting that taxing Americans at the highest rates in history isn't enough. Now they are going to tax foreign visitors to pay for buying our homes in America. My hope is that my colleagues will use the recess next week to finally listen to the millions of Americans who are tired of this Congress choosing winners and losers. They are tired of the excessive spending, and they are fearful of tax increases yet to come. They are telling us very clearly: Stop spending, stop borrowing, stop adding to the debt, and stop the government takeovers. Most of all, they agree on one thing: This Congress needs to get out of the way and let America get back to work. Unanimous-Consent Request--H.R. 3371 Mr. President, I will now speak on the status of the Federal Aviation Administration legislation and, hopefully, move the process along a great deal. At the end of this, I will offer a unanimous consent request. As many Senators will remember, early last year a small commuter plane crashed just outside Buffalo, NY. The accident killed all 49 people onboard and one person on the ground. In the months following the crash, the Senate Commerce Committee and its aviation subcommittee held a number of hearings to get a better understanding of what exactly went wrong during Flight 3407 and what Congress could do to help fix it. I thank Senator Dorgan in particular for his leadership on this issue. From those lessons we have learned and during the drafting of the FAA reauthorization, our colleagues in the House worked with us, and we were able to craft a number of important reforms that formed the safety section of both the House and the Senate reauthorization bills. Let me take a moment to outline some of them: an FAA pilots records database. Had we had a database like the one we have in this bill, it would be very likely that the pilot of Flight 3407 would not have been allowed to fly that day. Increased hourly requirements for copilots: If we had these requirements, the copilot on Flight 3407 would have had more experience, and we may have averted a disaster. There are a number of improvements in the House bill, including enhanced mentoring for pilots, increased utilization of safety management programs, better crew management initiatives, as well as clearer responses to NTSB safety recommendations. All of these reforms will go a long way to improving aviation safety. Sadly, we have yet to get this legislation across the finish line that would implement these reforms. Parochial politics, political payoffs, and backroom deals are keeping these important safety measures from passing. Some Members are trying to cut special deals for special flights to their States. Numerous Members are looking to impose new taxes on travelers already burdened by too much taxation. Some Congressmen are trying to cut a special deal for their buddies in the labor unions. All of these things are beside the point and are exactly what aviation policy should not be about. Since last October, the Senate has had a bill sitting before us that will immediately implement the reforms that the families of Flight 3407 have been calling for. They have waited too long. The fights over FedEx, taxes, and special flights aren't going to go away anytime soon. If we let them, these controversial issues will continue to hold up the safety provisions on which we all agree. Let's say that enough is enough; it is time to pass the safety improvements and let the rest of the FAA stand on its own. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3371 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read the third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I very much support the extension, but I have asked that this safety provision be moved along with it so that we can get this done instead of continuing to allow it to be held hostage to political interests on the bill. I would be supportive of a unanimous consent request that would extend the FAA authorization 30 days if it included my request for the safety provisions of the bill.

Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, we have been promised for months that this bill, the FAA reauthorization, which the Senator from North Dakota and I approve, would go through. The families of flight 3407 have been here constantly. As the Senator knows, one of those families is from my hometown. They have waited long enough. There is no reason that we need to hold these safety provisions hostage to passing a whole bill that is bogged down in political fights. I ask unanimous consent to amend my unanimous consent request to include the 30-day reauthorization of FAA. There are none of these provisions the Senator objects to. If there are additional safety provisions that can be in the final bill, we can do that. But nothing in my request compromises what the Senator from North Dakota wants to accomplish. I ask unanimous consent to amend my UC to call up and pass H.R. 5611.

Mr. DeMINT. I object.

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

Mr. DeMINT. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I assure the Senator I am in complete support not only of the 30-day extension but the bill he and I passed out of the Senate. Believe me, I was here for that and very much support it. If the Senator's colleagues will accept it the way we passed it through the Senate, it would be done today. But because of this holdup, what I consider safety provisions being held up unnecessarily for political reasons, I object.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, on behalf of other Members of the Republican conference, I object.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, on behalf of other members of the Republican Conference, I object.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few minutes on the motion that relates to the coming increases in capital gains tax and dividend tax. Very few Americans are aware and I think even some people in the Senate are not aware that in about 6 months, there is going to be a tax explosion in this country--taxes on everyone from the 10- percent bracket all the way up to major corporations. Taxes are going up at a time when we know raising taxes will kill jobs in America. The Heritage Foundation estimates that if we allow taxes to expire this year, the current rate of taxes to expire, and taxes go up in our economy, in the first year we could lose 270,000 jobs. This is really unacceptable when unemployment is already nearly 10 percent, the economy is waning, and we just got a bad housing report. As all of these companies plan for their future, they are certainly not going to risk capital to expand their companies and add people if they know their taxes are going to go up. What I proposed as part of this debate on a tax bill is to focus on just one area that we know has a lot to do with investment, with growth of companies; that is, the capital gains tax and the dividends tax. My motion would refer the underlying bill back to committee to add the provisions that cap gains tax and dividend taxes will both stay at 15 percent. If we do not act, in 6 months the capital gains taxes will go from 15 to 20 percent and the dividend taxes, which affect a lot of senior citizens on fixed incomes, will go from 15 all the way up to nearly 40 percent. That makes absolutely no sense in a recession and with the joblessness we have across this country. Surely, as a Senate, as a Congress, we could recognize that raising taxes on investment-- those who are going to risk their capital--does not make sense when we are trying to do everything we can to stimulate the economy. We tried it the other way. We tried the government spending approach. We all know this government spending plan we call the stimulus, where we spent nearly $1 trillion, has failed. The President promised that if we rushed that through and got stimulus immediately into the economy, over a year ago, that we could keep unemployment below 8 percent and put Americans back to work. But since then, we have lost millions of real jobs. We have added some government jobs because this is basically a government spending plan, but we certainly have not put the real economy most Americans depend on back to work. We are continuing to lose ground. Yet we stick to this failed stimulus plan. Even when we try to pay for extending unemployment benefits with unspent stimulus money, my colleagues on the other side are holding so tightly to this that they will not even use that money to pay for it. Instead, they want to raise taxes and add to our debt-- again, at a time when we really cannot afford this as a nation, when all of the so-called economic experts are warning us that this debt we have today is unsustainable. But almost every week in this body, the Democrats are proposing programs that add to the debt, that increase taxes--everything that is counter to improving our economy and adding to jobs and helping to build a brighter future in this country. Even some of those who were strong supporters of the stimulus bill have come out publicly and said: We guessed wrong. I am afraid we should not continue to guess. One thing we know from history is--if we look back over several decades-- when we lower capital gains and dividends we improve the economy and we increase job creation in the economy. It makes no sense for us to move ahead, sending the signal to all of the investors in this country that we are going to punish their investment at a time when we need them to step up to the plate. I hope my colleagues will consider this. What we are asking is that the bill be sent back to the Finance Committee so they can work on ways to keep capital gains and dividend taxes the same rather than let them explode, along with all of the other taxes that are going to go up in the next 6 months. I hope we will have a chance to vote on this bill. I understand the majority is trying to table this motion. I strongly urge my colleagues to take up this matter, to send it back to the Finance Committee where they can figure out how to make sure we do not kill more jobs in the economy like we have done with the other failed stimulus plan. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I send a motion to the desk.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, we are obviously considering a tax bill in the middle of a recession, with a lot of folks out of work. Yet we are talking very little about the fact that, within 6 months, tax rates for every American and every business are going to go up. It is already beginning to create uncertainty in our economy. Folks who would otherwise take risks and invest are holding back because of the increase in taxes. One of the main focuses of what we are doing needs to be on capital gains taxes as well as dividend taxes. Right now, the capital gains tax, in January, is going up--if we do nothing--from 15 to 20 percent. This will discourage investment. The dividend tax will go up from 15 percent to the top rate of nearly 40 percent. The Heritage Foundation estimates that if we would hold tax rates the same on these two taxes, we would save over 250,000 jobs next year alone. I am asking my colleagues to consider the urgent need to keep our current tax rates the same, particularly on capital gains and dividends, as we know a lot of seniors are living in part off dividends they receive. If we raise the tax rates on them, it is not going to do anything to help them or our economy. I am asking that this bill be referred back to committee, that they add this requirement that the capital gains and dividends stay the same, at 15 percent, and bring it back to the floor for a vote. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, because I was not allowed to offer my amendment as part of the regular order, in a moment I will move to suspend the rules to offer my amendment that will set a deadline to complete 700 miles of double layer fencing on our Southwest border, as is required by current law. If any Member of the Senate stood up today and said that we should not seal the oil leak in the gulf until we have a comprehensive plan to clean it up, we would all say that is absurd. Certainly we need to seal that leak as quickly as possible to minimize the cleanup later. But that is exactly the kind of logic the President and my Democratic colleagues are using when it comes to immigration. They are insisting we will not secure our borders until Republicans agree to a comprehensive plan with some form of amnesty and road to citizenship for those who have come here illegally. This is a debate we have had before and it was not settled here as much as it was out across America. Americans have said: Secure the border first. The big immigration bill we were trying to pass in 2006 failed because Americans finally convinced Senators that our first job is to secure the border; otherwise, any immigration policy is irrelevant. At that time we made a promise to the American people and passed a law that we would build 700 miles of double layer fencing in areas where pedestrian traffic is the biggest problem. We have seen that where that has been implemented it has been effective. But, unfortunately, since 2006, even though we were promised this could be done in a year or two, only 34 miles of double layer fencing has been built since we passed this law. In other words, the Federal Government is ignoring its own law at the peril of the citizens in Arizona, Texas, and those all over the country. By not keeping our promises, by not enforcing the law, we have created devastation and war on our southern border with Mexico. Thousands of Mexicans have been killed. We encouraged drug cartels all over the world to ship their goods through our borders. Arms trafficking, human trafficking--we have mass chaos on our border because we will not do what we know works. The President is saying we have done over 90 percent of the fencing that we promised, but this is the virtual fencing that the chief of border security has said has been a complete failure. There are only 34 miles of the 700 miles that we promised our country and put into law. My amendment does not make new law. It just sets a deadline, that the fence we promised will be completed within the next year. Motion to Suspend Mr. President, I move to suspend the provisions of rule XXII, paragraph 2, including germaneness requirements for the purpose of proposing and considering my amendment, No. 4177. I ask for the yeas and nays and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeMINT. If someone speaks against it, I will reserve 1 minute to respond.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XVI, and rule XXII, Paragraph 2, for the purpose of proposing and considering the following amendment to H.R. 4899, including germaneness requirements: At the appropriate place, insert the following:

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues Senators Grassley and Wyden for wanting to solve a problem. I appreciate them being willing to put some solutions forth. I think it is important that we talk about the bigger picture when we talk about secret holds. I want to make it clear that I am not interested in holding anything in secret. As a matter of fact, whenever we do it as part of Steering, we let the cloakroom know we are holding a bill. I think it is important that America knows what we are talking about here. At this point in the Senate, 94 percent of all of the bills are passed by unanimous consent. So this is hardly a lack of productivity. What this means is that 94 percent of the bills that pass the Senate have no debate, no vote, no amendments, no reading of the bill, no online disclosure and, very often, no score from the Congressional Budget Office. When I first took over the Steering Committee, one of the things I learned quickly is that whenever we are having a break--if we are going for a week, such as we are after this week--on my way to the airport I would get a call from staff telling me there were dozens of requests to pass bills by unanimous consent. They knew we were going out of town. A lot of them had pretty big pricetags on them. You don't get $13 trillion in debt when you are doing things right. Part of the problem is that 94 percent of the bills that pass the Senate pass in secret. The problem is not secret holds; it is the secret passing of bills, when often we don't even know who is requesting passage. If we didn't have staff available at night when they run their so-called hotlines-- which means the phone in your office rings and they ask if you will agree to pass a bill, and you have not read it and you don't know what it costs, but if you don't agree to pass it by unanimous consent, you are holding the bill. If you ask to read it for a day or so, it is likely that some association is getting e-mails from either the Republican or Democrat side saying that Senator DeMint is holding this desperately needed piece of legislation, which nobody else has read. I would be glad to work with my colleagues on dealing with this issue if they believe secret holds are a problem. I think that passing 94 percent of the bills without anybody reading them or knowing they are being passed is not a good way to do business. I think it is fair to have some system where, first, you cannot secretly ask for a bill to be passed by unanimous consent. That is what goes on today. We should look at the Coburn-McCaskill measure where, if you want something passed by unanimous consent in the dark of night, you have to put it on the Internet for at least 3 days, with a cost from the Congressional Budget Office, so that we know what we are getting into. Again, I remind you that we don't have a problem in Washington of not passing enough bills or spending enough money. The problem we have is we are passing bills that we don't even read that have pricetags that are running our country into a crushing debt. Again, I want to work with my colleagues. But if you are opposed to secret holds, which are really not a problem--and I am not aware of one where we don't know who is holding it. I have a problem with people asking that bills be passed in secret, and that 94 percent of the bills in this place get passed that way. There are a lot of pressing issues we face as a country, but one of them is not secret holds. If we want to spend floor time debating it, I want to be involved with that debate. We have no problem here with things that are being slowed down. The problem we have is that every week--like this week--we are adding to our spending and borrowing more money as a country, increasing our national debt, and we are expanding the Federal Government. This is not something we need to speed up. We need Members of the Senate to read bills. We don't need to be talking about holding a bill when someone innocently asks to read a bill and to let you know tomorrow. Let's work on this. If you want bills to go through quickly, let's get rid of the secret passing of bills that have never been on the Internet or seen the light of day. This is something where I know my colleagues are well intended, but the real problem is the secret bills and Members secretly asking to pass them. I will be glad to let you know I am holding them.