Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Is the Chair aware of any precedent where the Senate created a law and in doing so created a new rule that--and I am quoting from our bill: It shall not be in order in the Senate or in the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change-- Such law? Is the Chair aware that we have ever put this type of binding legislation on future Congresses in a bill?

Mr. DeMINT. I would ask the Chair to get those references, if the Parliamentarian would, to us. Mr. President, another parliamentary inquiry: If this new law will operate as a Senate rule, making it out of order for Senators to propose amendments to repeal or amend it--I have been in Congress 11 years. I have never heard of an amendment being called out of order because it changes something that was done before. How is that different than the types of Senate rulemaking for which our predecessors in their wisdom provided a two-thirds cloture vote? This seems to be a redefinition of words, in my mind. Mr. President, it is clear that the Parliamentarian is going to redefine words, as I am afraid he has done as part of this process before. But this is truly historic that we have included rules changes in legislation, and yet we are ignoring a rule that requires a two- thirds cloture vote to pass it. I believe it is unconstitutional. I believe it subverts the principle we have operated under, and it is very obvious to anyone that it does change a rule. It is clear that our rules mean nothing if we can redefine the words we use in them. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. Is there a difference between Senate procedures and rules?

Mr. DeMINT. So the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it is a procedure change?

Mr. DeMINT. Then I guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if we can redefine them. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Enzi for not just what he said today but for what he has been doing throughout this whole debate to make very complex issues much simpler so that people can listen in to what is being said here and understand what we are doing. It has been a frustrating process here dealing with this attempted government takeover of health care. While the majority has us here on the floor debating one bill, they are behind a closed door over here creating a whole new bill and making periodic announcements about what might be in it. It is kind of like a magician who gets you looking at one hand while the sleight of hand is actually doing the magic with the other hand, and that is what we see happening here today. The majority wants to force this major piece of legislation through before Christmas while people aren't paying attention. In the middle of this, they have decided to take a break to expand spending at unprecedented levels. I am here right now to support Senator McCain's rule XXVIII point of order that points out that the majority, the Democratic majority, has violated all of these so-called ethics and transparency improvements that they were bragging about only a year ago. We are not supposed to take bills and in the secret of conferences add things that weren't in the House or the Senate version. That violates a specific rule, an ethics rule that the majority trumpeted not too long ago. This bill contains out-of-control spending. It completely reverses Congress's traditional position on many values issues such as taxpayer-funded abortions and needle exchanges in the District of Columbia. It ends the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program that has done so much to help a small number of disadvantaged minority students. It increases funding for Planned Parenthood, the Nation's leading provider of abortions, and it legalizes medical marijuana. Yet the overall funding levels of this bill are unconscionable at a time when we are in recession and so many people are out of work. We have massive debt that threatens our Nation's economic future and our very currency itself. The bill represents a $50 billion increase or 12.5 percent over last year's funding level. This is not mandated spending; this is discretionary spending. This is a time the President is saying we have to get a handle on our debt. Yet every bill the Democratic majority has pushed across this floor has major increases in spending. It is actually nearly a $90 billion increase over the year before. Mr. President, what the President said he was against, which was earmarks, this bill has 5,224 earmarks, costing nearly $4 billion, in addition to the other spending. I cannot read all of those, but I think people across the country have learned what earmarks mean. Here are a few examples: $500,000 for construction of a beach park promenade; six different bike paths totaling $2.11 million; $250,000 for a trail at Wolftrap Center for the Performing Arts; and $250,000 for the Entrepreneurial Center for Horticulture. I could go on and on. It makes no sense to be doing this. I think maybe one of the most egregious parts of the bill, which I want to focus on for a few minutes, goes back to those values issues. It is one thing to make abortion legal; it is quite another thing to force Americans who consider abortion immoral, based on their beliefs, or religious beliefs--it is immoral to make them pay for it, to actually promote abortion. That is what this bill does. Everywhere you turn, this administration is promoting anti-life initiatives and advancing policies that most Americans find morally objectionable--namely, taxpayer-funded abortions. We have seen that throughout this health care debate, and now in the very set of bills that funds our government, it is promoting and funding abortion. This Nation has had a debate about whether we should even allow abortions to be legal. But we have been in general agreement as a nation, and even here in the Congress, for years that we should not force taxpayers to pay for abortions. That is a terrible use of the power of government. The omnibus bill reported by the House-Senate conference allows taxpayer funds to be used to pay for elective abortion in the District of Columbia, because Congress controls DC's entire budget, including appropriating the city's local revenues. If this omnibus bill passes, Congress will be allowing U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund abortion on demand, when it was previously prohibited. This is a major shift in policy. We must step back and see where our priorities are as a nation. The values of our country are at stake in this legislation. As we look at this, I hope no American is so naive as to think that if they pass this government takeover of health care, no matter what we put in the legislation, they will eventually fund elective abortions in this country. It shows everywhere they pass a piece of legislation that they are trying to promote abortion in this country. A vote for the omnibus is a vote for taxpayer-funded abortion. A vote against Senator McCain's point of order is a vote for taxpayer-funded abortion. It is simple and it is clear. Congress is responsible for the budget and the way the funds are spent. If we don't think the government should create an incentive for taking unborn lives, we should not allow it in the legislation before us today. In addition to this troubling revelation, the bill contains many other egregious reversals of longstanding policy contradicting traditional American values. The underlying bill legalizes medical marijuana and uses Federal funds to establish a needle exchange program in Washington, DC. Both encourage the use of drugs. This is another glimpse of what is going to happen with government- run health care. If this Congress is promoting the use of medical marijuana, needle exchange programs, abortion, in this funding bill, does anyone believe that that won't be a part of a government-run health care system? Of course not. Additionally, this bill eliminates the successful DC Scholarship Opportunity Program, which aids low-income children by giving them scholarships to attend private schools in Washington, DC. This affects only about 1,500 children. I have had a chance to meet with some of them who were in schools that were not working. This small scholarship program allows disadvantaged, primarily minority, students in Washington, DC, to go to a private school of their choice. Remarkably, in just a few years, the students who moved from the government schools to the private schools were 2 years ahead of their peers. It is an example of something that is working, helping disadvantaged students, and it is a good example of an administration that is more interested in paying off union interests--in this case the teachers union--than doing what is good for the children in our country. To eliminate this small, inexpensive program is absurd. But it reveals to you----

Mr. DeMINT. No, I won't. It reveals to you the true motives of the majority. If we look at this bill and this eventual health care bill-- if we ever have time to see it before they try to pass it--we are beginning to see a real glimpse, a true picture of where this Democratic majority is going. Finally, this bill increases funding for title X family planning services, of which Planned Parenthood is the largest recipient. Planned Parenthood is the Nation's largest provider of abortions. Increasingly, they are what we call directed abortions. When people come to Planned Parenthood and look for advice on family planning, they are more often than not encouraged and pushed toward abortion. All around this bill, you see what is going on. It is a major change in policy--not to make abortion available but to make Americans pay for it and to promote it. I, along with 34 of my colleagues in the Senate, signed and sent a letter to the majority leader regarding the troubling anti-life policies in this omnibus bill. Collectively, we vowed to speak out to protect the longstanding Federal funding limitations on abortion--a belief that has enjoyed broad bipartisan support for many years. For this reason, as well as a number of other values issues that are irresponsibly addressed in this legislation, I support Senator McCain to raise a point of order against the omnibus under rule XXVIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I remind my colleagues that a vote against the McCain point of order is a vote to force American taxpayers to promote and pay for abortions. It is plain and simple. I am sure there will be a lot of smoke and mirrors after my talk that will try to convince you that is not true. But it is in the legislation and it will happen. We need to stop it. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. If the Senator will yield, the President has said he is going to end this program.

Mr. DeMINT. I will come to the floor to explain the technical aspects of why it is not.

Mr. DeMINT. You grandfather it in--if the Senator will yield for a question, does this bill fund the continuation of the program beyond the 1,300 who are already in it?

Mr. DeMINT. It kills the program then.

Mr. DeMINT. But the program will not continue.

Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to address a question submitted to me from the good Senator from Illinois as to whether the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program will in fact end after this year. In order to respond to my colleague, I would like to highlight a particular section of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2010 that funds the District of Columbia's budget. In title IV, which explains how the District of Columbia is funded, it states that $13.2 million will indeed be provided for opportunity scholarships for existing students in the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. However, the very next line clearly states that the funds are to ``remain available until expended,'' which means that the program will eventually be phased out and terminated once the funding for current students is exhausted. Students in the program will slowly be phased out over time, unable to avail themselves of future educational opportunities currently given to them through this program. The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, which has the overwhelming support of DC residents, parents, Mayor Adrian Fenty, Chancellor Michelle Rhee, former Mayor Anthony Williams, and a majority of the DC City Council, has now been mandated a slow death by House and Senate appropriators. This scholarship program, which gives students of Washington, DC's poorest families a chance at a quality education, has now effectively been terminated since there is only funding available for existing scholarships and existing students, and not for future scholarships and future students. By funding this program in such a manner in the omnibus, Congress is ultimately signaling the beginning of the end for this scholarship program. By disallowing future students to take part, the size of the program will shrink year after year, and will deny entry to siblings of existing participants--punishing many who have been waiting in line for this tremendous opportunity. Additionally, the federal evaluation of this program will be compromised as the numbers of participants diminishes, making it difficult for administrators to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The fact that this administration continues to claim that the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program is not being terminated is yet another act of deception on their part to the American people. The President, who himself is a recipient of a K-12 educational scholarship, has refused to stand up for children in our Nation's Capital and fight for the same educational opportunities afforded to him and his family--a right he exercises now as he practices school choice with his own children.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Minnesota, who brought out a lot of important issues as far as the rising costs of health insurance, and I certainly knew that as a small businessman. There is only one problem: The bill we are going to vote on does not solve those problems. In fact, as CBO basically tells us, insurance will continue to increase at the same rate it does now, and for those with individual insurance policies, it is very likely to go up. Mr. President, we are here on a Friday evening being told we are going to work through the weekend, maybe next weekend, all the way up to Christmas Eve, with the intent to rush through a bill that many have called--and I agree--one of the worst pieces of legislation and one of the biggest threats to health care we have ever seen here in this country. Apparently, the majority wants to rush this through and hopefully intimidate the minority into allowing it to go through by keeping us here on weekends over the holidays. But I am proud Republicans are standing together against this bill and standing with the American people to stop the Democratic government takeover of health care in America and to stop them from paying for it by cutting nearly $500 billion from Medicare and raising taxes on millions of Americans. I heard from one of our constituents, who was talking about Medicare and the cuts in Medicare, explaining very simply that Medicare is something he had paid for his entire 40 years of working out of his payroll taxes, and now he could not believe we were considering taking any money out of Medicare in order to pay for a new government program. Americans work and pay for Medicare so that when they retire they will have benefits that give them the coverage they need. I think the majority must think Americans are not paying attention or maybe even they are not real smart, that you can take $500 billion out of a program that is already bankrupt and expect the benefits to stay the same, when already we know we are not paying doctors enough to see our seniors and more and more physicians are not even willing to see Medicare patients. If there really is waste and fraud in Medicare--and we know there is some--we should find it and put that money back into the Medicare system so we can keep our promises to seniors. Every Democrat in the Senate has already voted for a government takeover of health care, to cut Medicare to pay for it, and to raise taxes. Some of them said they were just moving the debate forward. But I ask you, what debate? Will there be any serious consideration to take this government-run plan out of this bill? There will not be. We have already seen there is no serious consideration to stop taking money out of Medicare to pay for it. In fact, we have had a lot of debate about what this is going to do: to cut from Medicare, what it is going to eventually do to benefits, cut Medicare Advantage. Now we are talking about cutting home health, which is so important, particularly in rural communities and for the more elderly constituents we serve. There is no way you could take this money out of Medicare without hurting the programs. Instead, as we look ahead at more people retiring than ever in history and Medicare being bankrupt, we need to be looking at ways that we can shore up this program so it will be there for generations to come. Every Republican voted no. Every Republican in this Senate has stood with the American people and said no to a health care bill that takes over the most personal and private part of our lives. I am proud of our party and our leadership. Americans have been asking to see the differences between the Republican and the Democratic Parties. I think now more than ever on this issue they are going to see the Democrats standing with government-controlled health care, cuts in Medicare, increased taxes and on the other side Republicans who are going to stay here through Christmas and New Year's or whatever it takes to stop this bill and to sit down and really reform this system in a way that will lower costs and improve care to all Americans. We need to continue to talk about these bigger issues, particularly how it affects Medicare, and we will be doing that over the weekend. But I think we owe it to the American people to begin to open this bill and explain what is in it. I can almost guarantee you, there is not one Member of the Senate who has read it yet. We are going to try to fit this in Santa's sleigh this year so it will be delivered to every American. I have the first part here--1,000 pages, small print, front and back--and have started going through it, putting tabs on different pages, so we can talk about the different things because sometimes they sound so extraordinary, people do not really believe they are in there. I am not sure we will ever get through the whole thing, but I just want to take a couple parts tonight and just start talking about what is really in this bill. On page 17, in section 2713 that is titled ``Coverage Of Preventive Health Services,'' which is really our jargon for rationing, it says: A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall provide coverage for . . . evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of ``A'' or ``B'' in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force. We heard from this task force a few weeks ago. This may sound harmless enough, as you look at it, but let's see what the really means: ``evidence-based . . . `A' or `B'.'' What is not A or B? Well, just 2 weeks ago, we found out something that was not A or B. Mammograms are a C rating. And the task force came out and said it should not be covered on anyone under 50 years old. That is in the bill, that it would not cover mammograms for folks under 50 years old because it is not A or B. Because of the outcry, we had an amendment from the other side to give themselves a little bit of cover on that one medical procedure, mammograms. We passed it with some fanfare yesterday. But the fact is, there are going to be many C ratings that are not covered. What are we going to do here in Congress over the next several years when we find constituents are not covered for things they need in retirement from Medicare? Are we going to pass bills to try to cover those individual things? What we should really do is throw out the bill that is causing the problem. We should not be rationing care to our seniors. Let's look at another page. And I know this is not as interesting as talking about theoretical stuff. But on page 33, section 2719 is called the ``Appeals Process'': A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall implement an effective appeals process . . . [to] provide notice to enrollees, in a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner. . . . Now, what do we think that means? Well, in fact, in 2001--this term has been used before--the Department of Health and Human Services reported that the Department had spent $10 million to figure out what that phrase means. And we still do not know. It says: ``Health care services that are respectful of and responsive to cultural and linguistic needs.'' But what this really means to us, according to the 2000 census, is there are at least 20 languages spoken by at least 200,000 Americans in this country, and what we are putting out there is a liability for every insurance company that does not have every aspect of their plan in those 20 languages. It may sound like a simple thing, but every page of this bill, almost--as you read it, you realize it is increasing the complexity and the cost of the system here in America. I will just cover one more of these because I hear my colleagues in the background urging me to finish. But I do think we owe it to the American people to begin to talk about what is really in this bill. On page 39, it says, under a funding category: Out of all funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated to the Secretary $250,000,000 to be available for expenditure for grants under paragraph (1) and subparagraph (B). Those subparagraphs are to track the trends in premium increases of health insurance once this bill goes into effect. Mr. President, $250 million to do what the Congressional Budget Office has already told us are going to be increases. But this kind of spending and this type of bureaucracy and complexity we are creating is not going to make health care more accessible and more affordable for Americans. It is creating a complex bureaucracy with tens of thousands of workers and bureaucrats to tell doctors what to do and hospitals what to do and for us, how to manage our health care. The Congressional Budget Office has already released a report finding that those purchasing insurance through the health insurance exchanges that are in this bill could pay up to 16 percent more for health care than we do today. Yet we are moving ahead with the bill. I will continue throughout this weekend, and every time I get a chance to speak, to talk about more of these things that are in this bill. But, folks, this is not a bill we should deliver to the American people for Christmas this year. This is a bill that we should throw out so we can start over and have a step-by-step approach to make health insurance more affordable and available to every American. With that, Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, Senator Graham joins me today to congratulate the men and women of the 169th Fighter Wing stationed at McEntire Joint National Guard Base, SC, for their outstanding service in defending our Nation and for their great achievements at the 2009 Falcon Air Meet. It has been 8 years since the attacks of 9/11 and the record of continuous operations for the 169th is an inspiration to us all. Shortly after the attacks, McEntire personnel deployed to Southwest Asia, directly participating in combat operations in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, pounding al-Qaida and Taliban insurgents. Later, the 169th FW mobilized and deployed as part of what became Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. The Swamp Foxes flew more than 400 combat missions, performing the Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses mission and flying numerous precision bombing missions over Iraq. However, when the 169th isn't defending freedom, they are winning awards and bringing home trophies. We are especially proud of the 169th's accomplishments at the 2009 Falcon Air Meet, a multinational F- 16 competition. The Swamp Foxes represented the United States against other Nation's fighter crews. They finished first in four of five competition categories, earning the Large Force Employment Trophy, Scramble Launch and Intercept Competition, Weapons Load Competition, Top Overall Maintenance Award, and was recognized with the Top Overall Competition Award. These are impressive achievements that bring great credit upon the 169th. On behalf of the people of the State of South Carolina and our great country, Senator Graham and I want to salute the outstanding work of the 169th. We are amazed by their stories, and humbled by the immense burdens they have shouldered. Their dedication, and their families' sacrifices are an inspiration, and our country owes them a debt of gratitude for their patriotic service.

Mr. DeMINT

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so I may call up two amendments.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Georgia attempting to get a very important amendment on the floor. I wish to also propound a unanimous-consent request for a related amendment, related to the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay. This week, I was advised by the officials at the Air Force and Navy base in Charleston----

Mr. DeMINT. I will in a second. Yes, I will yield.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I desire to offer an amendment, and I will propound a unanimous-consent request to allow my amendment to be considered postcloture. I have a request. I will get to the request in a moment. I wish to give a few seconds of background. We know this is not an idle threat because inquiries have been made in Charleston for moving detainees from Guantanamo Bay to minimum security brigs in Charleston. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 2847, it be in order for me to offer an amendment preventing the transfer of known terrorists at Guantanamo to U.S. soil.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, this amendment has been filed as a second degree. It makes no sense at this point for us to not have a short debate about moving the most dangerous people in the world to American soil. It is appropriate for us to allow at least a small amount of time, as we rush these bills through, to talk about the issues that are important to Americans. I am obviously disappointed that we will not allow the discussion of my amendment or the amendment of the Senator from Georgia or others who are trying to get this issue in front of this body for discussion. It does not mean you cannot vote it down. But not to allow a debate is certainly discouraging at this point. I appreciate Senator Vitter giving us a few minutes. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. I see the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. DeMINT. I would be happy to let the Senator from Rhode Island go first, as long as I can follow him.