Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set the pending amendment aside.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, as we all came into this debate on the first Democrat budget, a lot of us had high hopes. If you think back to the November elections, it seemed, at least for a few months, that Republicans and Democrats, in many ways, were saying a lot of the same things. We all decided it was very important we stop wasteful spending. We talked about reducing the debt. We even talked about keeping some of the tax relief that had gotten our economy going and created more jobs, although there is certainly some disagreement as to which tax cuts should be kept in place.

As we see the Democratic budget at this point, there are certainly a number of us who are disappointed, particularly as we see this budget allows crushing tax increases to hit Americans at every income level, as well as tax increases on the businesses that provide us all our jobs. Even more, there is nothing in this budget that does anything to cut spending. We all know there is wasteful spending

throughout this Federal Government. We need to get about the task of finding it and cutting it.

Perhaps the worst example of wasteful spending is when we take the taxes people pay for Social Security and, instead of saving them, we spend them on other things. For a number of years now, the amount of taxes all Americans pay in every paycheck for their future Social Security income--they have actually been more than we need to pay the benefits of current retirees. It is what we refer to as the Social Security surplus. But instead of saving this surplus over the years, we take that money and put it in the general fund and spend it on all kinds of things.

Even worse than spending Social Security on other things is we do not count it as debt when we talk about the deficit every year. So using the Social Security money is actually a way to hide even more wasteful spending without counting it as debt.

Now, for everything we borrow from Social Security, we put an IOU in this so-called trust fund, with this idea someday we are going to pay it back. But we need to try to remind the American people there are no plans in this Congress--and there never have been any plans--to pay that money back. Unfortunately, the Democratic budget that has been proposed over the next 5 years will spend over $1 trillion additionally in Social Security taxes, as well as the interest that is supposed to be paid on that money that has already been borrowed. So the money that should be saved for the future of Americans in their retired days is being spent every year, and it is being used to conceal more and more wasteful spending.

A lot of us have heard the news reports over the last year or two about the number of corporate pension plans that are going broke. The reason for that is, over the years not enough money has been put in those pensions to allow the companies to actually pay the benefits that have been promised. We call that an underfunded pension plan. It is creating huge problems for us throughout our country and for a number of workers who are counting on those pensions in their retirement.

But as we consider Social Security, it is a pension plan. It is a pension plan Americans pay into with the reasonable expectation that one day they will be able to get their promised benefits. But Social Security is not only an underfunded pension plan, it is a completely unfunded pension plan. Not one dime of all the trillions of dollars that have been put into Social Security over our lifetime is saved. As I said before, it is actually being used to obscure a bigger debt and to obscure more and more wasteful spending at the Federal level.

I commend Senator Bunning for his amendment that would require our budgeting needs not budget these Social Security dollars for other spending. I think it is very important that we take this a step further. Not only should we not spend the Social Security surplus, but we should take that money and put it in a reserve account so we actually save it for the future instead of giving it to the general fund to spend on anything we in Congress can come up with. Take the Social Security surplus--the cash itself will be about $80 billion this year; if you count the interest, it gets well more than that--put it in a reserve account and not spend it.

The amendment I have offered would allow us, within the budgeting process, to set this money aside and not spend it. Unless we support this amendment as part of the budgeting process, when we bring this up to actually get it done some time this year, there will be a point of order against it and it will not be allowed to pass. So it has to be done now. That is the purpose of this amendment.

Now, what will happen if we pass this amendment and we take this money off the table and no longer allow Congress to spend it? Then we are going to have to be honest about our debt, and we are probably going to have to cut some wasteful spending because this money is not going to be available for us to spend. It will put a lot of pressure on both parties, Republicans and Democrats, to figure out how to cut wasteful spending and how to save the Social Security money we promised to future generations. If we put it in a reserve account, we will also start the process to create a funded Social Security system, a Social Security system that has real money so we can keep our promises to future generations.

So I support Senator Bunning's amendment. I offer another that will take it a step further, so that the money we take off the table cannot be spent on anything else; it has to be in a reserve account and can only be spent on Social Security in the future. I wish to thank the Senator for allowing me to offer that amendment.

I yield the floor.

Yes, I will.

Well, that is part of the goal. The goal is not to spend it on other things but to actually set it aside so we don't spend it. In the past, as the Senator knows, we talked about lockboxes, where we don't spend it, but in effect we do spend it, even if it is paying down the debt.

The goal of the amendment is to take money that is surplused for Social Security and say it will only be spent for Social Security. This amendment doesn't take it any further than that. It doesn't tell Congress how the money should be saved or invested; it doesn't get into the more controversial aspects of will it go into personal accounts. It does not establish individual ownership at all. These are the things that have divided us in the past.

But I think we agree with the basic concept: Let's take Social Security off the table and somehow save it in a way that we can't spend it so we can be more honest in our accounting.

My amendment doesn't specify. Congress would have to determine that. As the Senator knows, as part of the budget process, this does not affect it happening. We would still have to perform the act of taking the money off the table. I think, again, as a majority Senator, you would have a greater determination of how that money is saved. There is no intent in my amendment to direct how it is saved. It could be T bills or something within the Federal Government. But the hope is we will put it in some type of holding or savings that is not part of the general fund anymore. It is not spent.

There is nothing that allows for it or prevents it. So I assume, again, with my colleagues in control of what comes to the floor, there is no danger of it drifting into any controversial area. I think we can certainly agree on some safe savings that would be risk free for the American people.

It does not allow for that in any way. That would have to be a separate piece of legislation, so that would be determined by-- this legislation does not open the door for private accounts.

Yes.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, if he is offering the amendment without an attached speech, I am fine with that. The majority leader limited our time and he will take the floor at 12. I will yield for the offering of an amendment.

Amendment No. 352

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors of the DeMint amendment: Senators Vitter, Craig, Roberts, Bunning, Enzi, Hatch, and Graham.

Mr. President, I want to speak about the DeMint amendment and make sure all of my colleagues are clear on what is about to happen.

The majority leader has said at 12 o'clock today he will make a motion to table or to kill the DeMint amendment to the 9/11 bill. It would be a large mistake for this body to kill this amendment, because it enables our airport security personnel to keep Americans safer.

One of the biggest threats we have now as a nation is we are beginning to forget 9/11 and what happened and what could happen. We are forgetting we are under a constant threat, that we live under alerts every day. It is not a matter of saying one day is an emergency and one day is not. It is not a matter of saying one passenger is an imminent threat but the other one might not be.

Our transportation security agency is charged with making sure we screen every passenger, every bag, and that we have an alert system based on intelligence and other information that allows them to move toward possible threats.

Unfortunately, we have heard Members of this Senate saying the war on terror is not an emergency, that al-Qaida is not a new imminent threat, when we know that every day al-Qaida may have a new plan to attack Americans at different points.

When the Homeland Security agency was formed, we had a debate about whether the transportation security agencies, the officers working for them, the screeners, should have collective bargaining. It was agreed at the time, because of the need for flexibility and constant change, that screeners would have the freedom to join a union, and a number of workers' rights and protections were put into place, but that they would not have collective bargaining arrangements as some of our other agencies do.

I point out we have heard some in this Chamber use border security as an example of collective bargaining working. What I hold in my hands is only one example of a collective bargaining agreement for our Customs Service.

We cannot make a case that our border security has worked well. We have over 12 million illegals in this country that testify it is not. Our customs system is becoming well known as being one of the slowest in the world. Collective bargaining will not work for our airports. I am afraid, again, we are beginning to forget we are in an emergency situation. The 9/11 Commission didn't recommend we change current airport security.

My amendment is designed to keep current law the same. The majority leader will ask this Chamber to kill that bill, which would mean we would lose the 9/11 security bill we have all worked on.

I ask unanimous consent that several items be printed in the Record. First is a letter from the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, Kip Hawley, who tells us if collective bargaining is implemented with the transportation security agency, it will significantly reduce their ability to keep our country safe. Next is a letter with over 36 Senators signing it, saying they will sustain the President's veto of the 9/11 bill if it hampers our security by injecting collective bargaining into the process. Next is a letter from the House of Representatives, with 155 signatures, saying they will sustain the veto.

Mr. President, a vote to kill the DeMint amendment is a vote to kill the 9/11 bill we have all worked on. Let there be no question about it, the vote should be no. There is no reason to change the operation of the transportation security agency and to inject third party negotiations, particularly when it involves sensitive information.

So let us be clear that the motion to table my amendment is a motion to make our airports less secure. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to table.

Mr. President, I see our minority leader is here. I will yield to him for comments at this time.

Madam President, I know Senator Collins wants to put security first in this bill, and I am looking forward to seeing her compromise amendment, but I am standing today to speak on the ongoing efforts by my Democratic colleagues to force the Transportation Security Administration--these are the folks who guard our airports today--to collectively bargain with labor unions on the decisions they make.

The Senator from Missouri, Senator McCaskill, is offering an amendment that I consider very dangerous. I wish to make sure my colleagues understand all that is at stake.

First, this debate is about one thing and one thing only: whether Congress believes that our airport security agency--what we refer to as TSA--should have to negotiate with unions before it can carry out decisions that will save American lives. That is what this debate is about. The McCaskill amendment will change current law to force our airport security agency to negotiate with unions. The DeMint amendment will protect current law, which makes security TSA's top priority.

The security implications of this policy are becoming clear, and that is why there is an effort by my Democratic colleagues to cloud the issue. Rather than admitting that collective bargaining is a labor union initiative, not a 9/11 Commission recommendation, my Democratic colleagues are now trying to paint it as proworker and prosecurity. This is extremely disappointing because the truth is that the McCaskill amendment is prounion and it weakens security.

When you boil it down, the McCaskill amendment will force airport security workers or the airport security agency, TSA, to bargain with labor unions before they make security decisions. Let me say that again. The Transportation Security Agency will have to bargain with labor unions before they make security decisions.

This is an earmark for big labor that comes at the expense of homeland security. I wish to go through the arguments offered by the other side and make sure everybody understands why they are misguided.

First, my colleagues say their collective bargaining amendment will prevent TSA screeners from going on strike and bargaining for higher pay. But the truth is that screeners could not strike anyway because the law prohibits Federal employees from striking. In addition, prohibiting bargaining for pay is also meaningless, since the Department of Homeland Security pay system does not allow bargaining now. So on this point, the other side is simply trying to cloud the issue and mask their union earmark with meaningless rhetoric.

Second, my colleagues say their collective bargaining amendment will create new workforce protections for security screeners. But the truth is, these

benefits already exist. Workers already have whistleblower protection through a memorandum of understanding with the Office of Special Counsel. Workers already have protection against discrimination through the alternative resolution of conflict program. Workers already have due process protections against disciplinary actions that are more efficient than the protections offered to other Federal employees.

Madam President, again, we are talking about the collective bargaining amendment. I was pointing out the protections that current TSA workers have. They have whistleblower protection, protection against discrimination, and they already have due process protections against disciplinary action that is more efficient than the protections offered by Federal workers.

Security screeners already have the right to appeal adverse actions to TSA's Disciplinary Review Board, which provides due process equivalent to that available to other Federal employees.

Workers already enjoy access to the Rehabilitation Act, except where Congress has specified that security job functions require certain aptitudes and physical abilities.

So all of these proworker provisions are redundant and meaningless in any amendment to current law. They are only being offered to mask the true goal of the amendment, which is to force TSA to bargain with unions on their security decisions.

The other side also likes to say there are high attrition rates at TSA and that collective bargaining would stabilize the workforce. I am afraid this is also false. Before 9/11, when airport security was under collective bargaining, attrition rates were as high as 400 percent at some airports. Now the voluntary attrition rate for full-time employees is down to 12.6 percent, and it is falling. This is not only significantly lower than pre-9/11 levels, but it is also lower than the attrition rates for the private sector as a whole and lower than the Federal Government as a whole. So my colleagues must understand that these are good jobs, attrition is low and falling, and attrition is not a valid reason to create collective bargaining.

It is also important that my colleagues understand how the collective bargaining amendment will weaken our homeland security, which is the priority of the 9/11 Commission bill.

First, the amendment creates a security trigger that will allow TSA to turn collective bargain on and off. This acknowledges that collective bargaining weakens security. I wish to repeat so my colleagues understand my Democratic colleagues agree that collective bargaining reduces security, and they feel obligated to offer a way to bypass it.

But this so-called trigger for emergencies only makes the problem of collective bargaining worse. The language defining emergencies and newly imminent threats is so vague it will take an army of lawyers to determine whether each circumstance meets the definition. This will hurt our security and force TSA to be reactive and slow in its efforts to prevent future attacks.

If my colleagues need proof that there will be wide disagreement as to when the security trigger can be used, they only need to hear the comments made by the sponsor of this amendment. When I asked if the current ongoing global war on terror would be considered an emergency under the amendment, the Senator from Missouri said it would not. If TSA cannot use the war on terror as a reason to protect Americans from al-Qaida and other terrorists on a daily basis, under what circumstance can it use this flexibility?

This underscores the issue that lies at the heart of this debate. On one side, there are those who believe we should always be on alert and that we must treat every person and every bag going through our airports as a potential threat. On the other side, there are those who believe we are not under constant threat and we can simply turn on and off our ability to prevent future attacks. That is the real disagreement because we all seem to agree collective bargaining weakens security.

In addition to allowing our security to be switched on and off by unions, the McCaskill amendment creates all the same problems as full- blown collective bargaining.

First, it still forces TSA to sign huge collective bargaining contracts, such as Customs and Border Patrol have now, and it could mean hundreds of separate contracts at airports across the country. Instead of streamlining security, it will create complex guidelines that make it harder to share and shift resources between airports as threats emerge.

Second, it still forces TSA to set up a huge new bureaucracy for collective bargaining, putting new layers of redtape ahead of security and redirecting resources away from security and toward labor management. This new bureaucracy will cost TSA at least $160 million over the next year, forcing it to take 3,500 screeners off security checkpoints and doubling the wait time for passengers.

Third, it still forces TSA to terminate its pay-for-performance system that currently rewards screeners for their proficiency rather than their seniority. This will only reduce TSA's ability to maintain a qualified workforce.

Fourth, it still forces TSA to share sensitive security information with unions, compromising air travel security. The amendment claims to protect ``properly classified'' information, but it doesn't address other types of sensitive information, such as the emergency plans for our airports.

This brings me back to my original point. This debate is about collective bargaining and whether it makes us more or less secure. All the talk about worker benefits and workplace protections and security triggers is meant to cloud the issue and prevent Senators from being accountable for their votes. This collective bargaining proposal has nothing to do with preventing another 9/11. In fact, it could increase the chance of another such attack, and my colleagues should consider that before they vote.

There are only two reasons to vote for the McCaskill amendment: either political payback or out of political fear. I hope my colleagues will not act on either. Democrats should not pay back unions at the expense of our security, and we should not be afraid to stand up against union bosses so we can keep America safe.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the McCaskill amendment.

It will not only weaken our security, it will also kill this bill. The President will veto it and the Senate will sustain his veto. So that leaves the other side of the aisle with a clear choice. They can either have a political showdown with the President over an earmark for labor unions or they can take this provision out of the bill and make some progress on our security agenda.

The DeMint amendment protects American security. The McCaskill amendment protects unions.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I be allowed to offer an amendment, which I am sending to the desk.

Mr. President, I thank the managers for their hard work. They sincerely want to strengthen homeland security and want to keep this bill focused on that goal and not allow it to be tangled up in partisan issues. That is my goal, too. That is why I am offering this amendment today.

The provision in this bill, found on page 215, that reverses a critical homeland security policy and introduces collective bargaining for airport screeners who work at the Transportation Security Administration, or what we call the TSA, has nothing to do with improving our homeland security. It was certainly not recommended by the 9/11 Commission. My amendment would strike this provision so TSA can continue to protect us from another terrorist attack.

It may be helpful to review the history of this debate so my colleagues understand how we got here. Just 5 years ago, Congress voted in favor of a flexible personnel management system at TSA in recognition that special flexibility is necessary to protect American passengers from terrorists. This system allows security screeners to join a union, but it doesn't tie the hands of TSA when it comes to managing its workforce and protecting the American people.

Collective bargaining, however, would allow labor unions to stand between TSA and its employees in ways that would make the agency less flexible and less nimble and create an operational and security disaster. Mr. President, collective bargaining has been a topic of discussion since TSA's inception. It is important that my colleagues know that it has been evaluated and rejected in every instance as something that would be harmful to our safety.

First, in 2001, collective bargaining was not included in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act when TSA was first created.

Second, in 2003, collective bargaining was rejected by the TSA Administrator for security reasons.

Third, in 2004, collective bargaining was not recommended by the 9/11 Commission.

I need to repeat that because it is important. This whole bill is designed to fulfill the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and they did not mention anything about collective bargaining.

Finally, the decision against collective bargaining at TSA has been upheld by multiple Federal and labor relations courts between 2002 and 2006.

Now I will outline six of the negative security consequences of this dramatic change in policy. First, TSA currently uses a security strategy as recommended by the 9/11 Commission that is based on flexible, random, and unpredictable methods. This approach keeps would- be attackers off guard.

Under collective bargaining, TSA will have to negotiate a predetermined framework within which the agency will be required to operate. This policy was not recommended in the 9/11 Commission Report, and it goes directly against the Commission's recommendations. This will weaken our security.

Second, TSA currently establishes security protocols on a national and international basis without having to bargain in advance over the impact of these protocols.

Under collective bargaining, TSA will be required to negotiate on every security protocol with multiple unions on an airport-by-airport basis. At its worst, this could stop many critical new security protocols, but even at its best it will slow them down. This will weaken our security.

Third, TSA currently shifts resources in real time without having to inform any entity. Under collective bargaining, redeployment decisions will be subject to binding arbitration review by a third party who has no Government or security experience but has authority to reverse TSA security decisions.

As my colleagues know, arbitration can take months or even years to resolve. This will weaken our security.

Fourth, TSA currently moves, upgrades, replaces, and repositions equipment to stay in tune with operational requirements. Under collective bargaining, equipment deployment will be subject to a 60- to 180-day negotiation process. All information, including standard operating procedures and tactics, will also be subject to union negotiation. This will weaken our security.

Fifth, TSA currently protects sensitive security information, such as the security resources at a particular site, and releases this information only to those who need to know.

Under collective bargaining, TSA will be required to disclose security information to third party negotiators and arbitrators, increasing the risk of unauthorized information release. This will weaken our security.

Sixth, and finally, TSA currently deploys many innovative security programs within weeks. Under collective bargaining, new positions and promotions will all be subject to months, or years, of impact in implementation.

TSA provided just-in-time explosive training to more than 38,000 security screeners in less than 3 weeks in November of 2005. Under collective bargaining, training is subject to negotiation on the need, design, order of training delivered, and method of delivery. This process could add 60 to 180 days to security training programs and weaken our security.

I know my colleagues understand the need for TSA to be able to move quickly, so I want to make sure everyone knows how slow and how cumbersome collective bargaining will be. Let's please keep in mind as we look at this situation the whole purpose of TSA is to protect our country. That is their first priority. We cannot allow the unionization and union requirements to preempt this first priority of TSA.

Today, TSA--and I know this is very difficult to read--can implement its changes in 1 day or less, and we will talk about some of those examples. But under collective bargaining, it can take up to 568 days to work out the negotiations and possible litigation that could occur when they are trying to establish new protocols. This is not acceptable when it comes to protecting our country.

If we introduce collective bargaining at TSA as proposed in this bill, changes could take, as I said, up to 568 days. My colleagues can see a collective bargaining process starts with up to 14 days of advance notice, up to 14 days for the union to decide how they are going to negotiate, plus up to 180 days to negotiate, and followed by 7 days to implement.

This whole process does not fit with national security interests. I hope my colleagues agree that this is too long and too cumbersome to subject our Nation's security to.

I wish to share with my colleagues several real-world examples of how TSA has been able to rapidly respond to security threats. I will point the attention of my colleagues to the United Kingdom bomb plot, of which we are all aware, last August in 2006. On August 10 of last year, information about one of the most spectacular terrorist plots since 9/ 11 was shared with TSA. TSA worked very quickly to develop a plan that would, over the course of 12 hours, ban all liquids beyond the security checkpoint and enact the quickest changes to the prohibited items list in history. It was simply the most drastic change airport security had ever undergone, and it happened in less than 6 hours from the time the arrest of the alleged terrorists was revealed.

I understand one of my colleagues has offered an amendment that would undercut the whole idea of this bill and force TSA to prove it is an emergency or an imminent threat in order to take the action we did when this plot was revealed.

What will TSA have to go through to prove there is an emergency? What kind of court case, what kind of litigation, what kind of hearings in Congress will they have to go through to prove it is an emergency? This attempt to gut this bill makes it worse than the underlying bill because it subjects our security to constant litigation and second- guessing.

The success of this operation--this United Kingdom bomb plot--was based on a number of factors, including a nimble and professional workforce who is highly trained and rewarded for their performance: an ability to change procedures within hours, expertise in dealing with the public to educate, inform, and help them handle the changes, and a commitment to security in the face of emerging threats. This is a clear example of why we should not tie TSA's hands and prevent it from accomplishing its security mission.

Another example of how TSA has been able to react quickly happened last July, when Lebanon erupted into violence and fighting broke out, leaving thousands of Americans trapped in between the warring factions. The Government of the United States safely evacuated these Americans and thousands of other refugees.

From July 22 to July 31, TSA officers helped to secure 58 chartered flights from Cypress to the United States and screened over 11,000 passengers. The overseas and domestic deployment was the first of its kind, and it demonstrated TSA's ability to use its flexible structure to appropriately respond to both domestic and overseas needs.

TSA delivered on its security mission and ensured the security of arriving airplanes and passengers. The mission was designed, executed, and people were being screened overseas within 96 hours, which is remarkable for a Government agency that had never deployed overseas and had not envisioned a need to do so.

It is important for us to remember at this point the amendment that has been offered to change my amendment would likely have resulted by now with TSA being in court, being challenged as to whether the situation in Lebanon was an imminent threat to our country, which is the language of the amendment that has been offered to change this bill.

We cannot water down our Nation's security by allowing TSA to have to follow collective bargaining rules or, which has been proposed, prove it is an emergency or an imminent threat. This would create a heyday for lawyers.

If these operations had been subject to arbitration and review required by collective bargaining, changes in deployments of personnel would have required notification on TSA's management to the collective bargaining unit, followed by a response accepting the changes in employment conditions or proposing modifications. This process would have created time-consuming rounds of negotiation, even using an expedited process.

TSA's response to the United Kingdom terrorist plot was developed in 12 hours, and the screeners were deployed to Lebanon and Cypress within 96 hours, response times that would have been significantly delayed by days and weeks, if not made impossible, had the notification and negotiation requirements in this bill been in effect. We cannot allow that to happen to our Nation's security.

I would now like to outline three ways collective bargaining will negatively affect workforce performance.

First, TSA currently uses a paid-for performance system that is based on technical competence, readiness for duty, and operational performance. Top security screeners receive a 5-percent base pay increase on top of a 2.1-percent cost-of-living adjustment and a $3,000 bonus.

Under collective bargaining, this paid-for performance system will be replaced with a pass-fail system based heavily on seniority that will not adequately assess technical skills. The collective bargaining system will not reward screening performance or good customer service, and it will reduce standards. This will weaken workforce performance.

Second, TSA can also currently remove ineffective security screeners within 72 hours. Imagine that: The frontline security of our country can identify someone who is not doing their job and remove them so our country and the airline passengers can be safe.

Under collective bargaining, however, arbitration proceedings will retain substandard employees for months, preventing the hiring of replacement officers. This process could take 90 to 240 days and will reduce overall workforce performance. This will weaken workforce performance.

Third, TSA currently uses multiple screening disciplines, adding interlocking layers of security. Under collective bargaining, employees will be able to refuse multidisciplinary jobs resulting in fewer resources to serve passenger checkpoints. This will weaken workforce performance.

My colleagues should know exactly how this weakened workforce performance affects air travelers in our country, and we can have a good look at how that is going to affect us by looking at Canada. A recent incident in Canada provides a great example.

Canada's air security system does not have the flexibility that TSA enjoys. Last Thanksgiving, as part of a labor dispute, passenger luggage was not properly screened and sometimes not screened at all as airport screeners engaged in a work-to-rule campaign, as they called it, creating long lines at the Toronto airport.

A government report found that to clear the lines, about 250,000 passengers were rushed through with minimal or

no screening whatsoever. One Canadian security expert was quoted as saying that if terrorists had known that in those 3 days their baggage wasn't going to be searched, that would have been bad. That is an understatement of the year. We cannot afford to have this kind of union-sponsored disruption at our airports. The Canadian union's airport security was not allowed to strike either, but we can see what they did in order to disrupt the proper screening of baggage there. This would happen in our country as well.

I think it is also important that people know how collective bargaining will impact passenger service. I know that for most Americans, security is the No. 1 goal when it comes to air travel, but they also want security operations to be efficient and not needlessly disrupt their schedules.

I know my colleagues would be pleased to know that TSA has managed the growth of passenger travel and kept average peak wait times to less than 12 minutes. Under collective bargaining, TSA will have to pull at least 3,500 screeners, or 8 percent of the total workforce, off a line to fulfill the needs of the new labor-management infrastructure. This would close at least 250 screening lanes, causing longer lines at checkpoints.

Under these circumstances, average wait times would increase from 12 minutes at peak to more than 30 minutes. This is something that will be very unpopular, especially given the fact that these longer wait lines come with less security.

TSA is also currently capable of relocating security screeners to enable on-time aircraft departures. Under collective bargaining, negotiating job stations and functions will result in poor staffing, leading to longer lines, late flight departures, and other adverse industry impacts. Americans want to make their flights, and they will not support needless delays that come at the expense of their security.

I think it is also important that my colleagues understand what I am talking about and how it could play out in real terms.

During Hurricane Katrina, TSA deployed security officers from around the country to New Orleans to screen evacuees during the aftermath of the storm. This response allowed them to evacuate 22,000 men, women, and children through the airport safely and securely. Several weeks later, TSA responded the same in response to Hurricane Rita in Houston. Security screeners left their home airports with little notice to fly to Houston to help those in need.

Another example of how TSA has been able to react quickly to weather- related events occurred this past December when a big snowstorm hit Denver. Because local TSA employees were unable to get to the airport, TSA responded quickly by deploying 55 officers from Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, and Colorado Springs to Denver. The deployment allowed TSA to open every security lane around the clock at the airport until they were back to normal operations.

Should we force TSA to prove this was an imminent danger or an emergency before they respond to the needs of the American people? That is what the second-degree amendment is intended to do. We cannot allow that. That will weaken our security.

These operations have been subject to arbitration review required by collective bargaining. Changes in deployment of personnel would have required notification by TSA management to the collective bargaining unit, followed by a response accepting the changes in employment conditions or proposing modifications. This process would have created time-consuming rounds of negotiations, even using an expedited process. Americans do not want needless bureaucracy in our airports, especially when it comes at the expense of our safety.

I also want my colleagues to understand the amount of money collective bargaining is going to cost and how it will impact TSA's operation in air travel security.

The first year startup costs of creating a collective bargaining infrastructure is conservatively estimated at $160 million, forcing TSA to relocate thousands of screeners currently working on aviation security. Since there is no money allocated for this change, this mandate would force TSA to pull 3,500 transportation security officers, or 8 percent of the total workforce, off the checkpoints.

These officers equate to 250 of the 2,054 active screening lanes across the Nation at any given time, closing 250 lanes. This impact is equivalent to closing all the checkpoint screening lanes in Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, and New York. This impact is the equivalent of closing all screening operations across the system 1 day every week. This impact would result in failing to screen 300,000 passengers every day.

Some may say we should increase spending for TSA by $160 million. But if we have this money, why use it to pay for redtape? Let's use it for security.

I also want to address some of the objections to TSA's flexible management. First, those who want collective bargaining at TSA say they want screeners to be treated as every other Federal employee. That would be fine, except for the fact they are not like every other Federal employee. They have a mission to protect the American people, and collective bargaining will prevent them from accomplishing this mission.

Second, those who want collective bargaining at TSA say it will lead to lower attrition and, therefore, more safety. Collective bargaining may lead to lower rates of attrition, but it will not lead to more security.

I am sure there are security screeners who would like to be guaranteed lifetime employment, but that would prohibit TSA from keeping America safe. TSA currently has the ability to reward screeners based on their performance and to remove those screeners who are not performing. That is what ensures safety, not a workforce that is rewarded for seniority and is not accountable.

We have also heard the supporters of collective bargaining at TSA say it is working at Customs and border control. First, I take issue with the claim it is working with Customs or working at our borders. Our Customs agency has experienced numerous delays and complications in securing our borders that have been caused by collective bargaining. I think our Customs agency and border security should have the same flexibility TSA enjoys, and it is a debate we should have as we look at ways to better secure our borders.

Let's make sure we understand what we are saying. Advocates of collective bargaining for airport security are saying our border security has worked well. It is hard to look at 10 to 12 million illegal aliens in our country and say our border security is working well. It is not working well.

We are also hearing increasingly from all over the world that our customs process is among the worst in the world. Our tourism is down and our business visits are down because we are making it harder and harder for people from around the world to get into our country. Our customs system doesn't work and neither does our border security.

The supporters of collective bargaining at TSA also believe our screeners are lacking important protections to address their grievances. I hope my colleagues know TSA has given screeners the ability to have their whistleblower complaints reviewed by the Office of the Independent Counsel, even though it is not required in law. Critics also claim screeners do not have the ability to appeal adverse actions against them, such as suspensions and terminations, through the Merit System Protection Board. This is true, but TSA has created its own disciplinary review board that provides workers with relief faster than the Merit System Protection Board.

I want my colleagues to understand what all of this means for unions, because I am afraid that is what this policy is all about. Unionizing the 48,000 workers at TSA will give labor unions a $17 million annual windfall in dues from these new union workers. Let me share a quote. For my colleagues who doubt this policy is being driven by unions, I want them to hear what was said earlier this week by two leaders of the American Federation of Government Employees, which is affiliated with the AFL-CIO. They said:

We must gain 40,000 new members a year to break even today.

But because of the age of our members and pending

retirements, that number will grow to 50,000 in 2 years and

probably 60,000 a few years after that.

An additional comment:

This campaign is the perfect opportunity to convince TSA

employees to join our union and become activist volunteers in

our one great union.

The purpose of TSA is not to create activist volunteers for unions. It is to protect our country. Again, I need to remind my colleagues the top priority of Homeland Security and TSA is to protect Americans.

I conclude by saying this is a very serious issue, and I encourage all my colleagues to think about it carefully. We all want workers to have better benefits, but that is not what this debate is about. TSA offers great benefits and important protections to its workforce. This debate is about how to keep our country safe, and we cannot tie TSA up in knots of redtape.

I understand the unions want this new policy because it will add thousands of new dues-paying members to their rolls, but they are going to have to live without it in order to keep our country safe. This bill is about doing things that will prevent another 9/11 attack. Adding an earmark for labor unions that prevents TSA from doing its job is the last thing we should do.

I realize the Senator from Connecticut feels strongly about this issue, and I know I probably haven't changed his mind. Unionizing the Federal workforce is something that is very important to him, and it is something he has worked on for many years, most notably when Congress created the new Department of Homeland Security in 2002. I also realize the majority leader has impressed upon the Senators on the other side of the aisle to stick together in supporting this destructive policy. This is very disappointing, because it shows the majority may be more interested in having a political showdown than they are in strengthening our security.

The President has issued a veto threat on this bill if it creates collective bargaining at TSA, and there are enough Senators to sustain it. That leaves us with two options: We can remove this misguided position and preserve the bill or we can let the bill die. I simply ask my colleagues: Is this union earmark worth killing this bill for? I don't think so.

I think it is important to also note the second-degree amendment that is being offered to change my amendment is not supported by Homeland Security. In fact, they believe it will make this bill worse than it is right now.

My colleagues, I ask everyone to set aside the partisan politics, set aside special interests, and let us continue to improve TSA, our Transportation Security Agency. They have demonstrated that while there have been a lot of problems with starting up a new agency, each year they have gotten better. Each year their workforce has gotten better trained. Each year we are moving passengers through with less and less inconvenience and better and better security. This is not the time to turn back. This is not the time to play politics and payback with our security.

I encourage everyone to take a careful look at this amendment and I ask my colleagues to support it.

With that, Mr. President, I yield back.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I want to make sure I understand the provisions in the Senator's amendment. I know one of them is TSA, in order to act quickly and make changes rapidly, would need to establish that there is an emergency.

My question is, Would the ongoing global war on terror be considered an emergency?

I know another criterion is that if they could establish that we have a newly imminent threat they could act quickly to respond and not go through the collective bargaining process. Would al-Qaida be considered a newly imminent threat?

If I could make one last appeal? This document is the collective bargaining procedures the border agents have for just one unit. This bill opens the possibility of literally hundreds of unions in every airport. I appeal to my colleagues. If every airport has to deal with separate collective bargaining arrangements and has to establish an emergency or imminent threat on every occasion, and we can second-guess them in Congress--and lawyers will--I think we need to work together to make sure we come to the best conclusion. I know the amendment of the Senator is well intended. Hopefully we can discuss it more on the floor tomorrow or next week.

Madam President, I thank the managers of this bill for the time and effort they have put into it. It is almost 400 pages long, and it contains numerous provisions. I look forward to working with the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, in the coming days to make this bill better. I call up amendment No. 279.

Madam President, the amendment I have offered, No. 279, is very simple. It codifies the recent regulations issued by the Department of Homeland Security which bans certain criminals from gaining security access to our seaports. My amendment is needed to protect these regulations from outside groups that may challenge them in court, as well as from future administrations that may repeal or weaken them.

My amendment is also bipartisan and should not be controversial. It was unanimously adopted by this body last

year as part of the SAFE Port Act which passed 98 to 0. Unfortunately, it was gutted by the conference committee behind closed doors, and that is why I am offering it again today.

As my colleagues know, the Maritime Transportation Security Act requires the Transportation Security Agency, TSA, to develop a biometric security card for port workers at our seaports that can be used to limit access to sensitive areas within a seaport. The security card is called a transportation worker identification card or, as we sometimes call it, a TWIC.

The law requires that the Secretary issue this card to any individual requesting it unless the Secretary determines that the individual poses a terrorism security risk or if the individual has been convicted of treason, terrorism, sedition, or espionage. To clarify who poses a security risk, the Department of Homeland Security recently issued regulations that bar certain serious felons from receiving these TWICs. Specifically, the regulations permanently bar from our ports criminals convicted of espionage, sedition, treason, terrorism, crimes involving transportation security, improper transport of hazardous material, unlawful use of an explosive device, bomb threats, murder, violation of the RICO Act, where one of the above crimes is a predicate act, and conspiracy to commit any of these crimes.

The Department of Homeland Security regulations also bar recent felons--defined as those convicted within the last 7 years or incarcerated in the last 5 years--from gaining access to our ports if they have been convicted of any of the following felonies: assault with intent to murder, kidnapping or hostage-taking, rape or aggravated sexual abuse, unlawful use of a firearm, extortion, fraud, bribery, smuggling, immigration violations, racketeering, robbery, drug dealing, arson, or conspiracy to commit any of these crimes.

These regulations were developed after an extensive process that included consultation with the Department of Justice and Transportation to identify individuals who have a propensity to engage in unlawful activity, specifically activity that places our ports at risk. These regulations governing who can gain access to our seaports are nearly identical to the regulations that govern those who can gain access to our airports as well as those who can transport hazardous material in our country.

These prohibitions are crucial because individuals who engage in this type of unlawful activity have a greater likelihood to engage in these acts or in acts that put American ports and American lives at risk. Our law enforcement officials understand this risk. They understand the threat our ports face when traditional criminals, particularly organized criminals, work with terrorists. For example, the FBI recently apprehended a member of the Russian mafia attempting to sell missiles to an FBI agent who he believed was acting as a middleman for terrorists.

Joseph Billie, Jr., the FBI's top counterterrorism official, recently commented that the FBI is continuing to look at a nexus between organized crime and terrorists, and they are looking at this very aggressively. The threat not only comes from criminals working directly with terrorists, it also comes from criminals who may look the other way when a suspect container comes from a port. Joseph King, a former Customs Service agent and now a professor at the John J. College of Criminal Justice, outlined the concern very clearly: ``It is an invitation to smuggling of all kinds,'' he said. ``Instead of bringing in 50 kilograms of heroin, what would stop them from bringing in 5 kilograms of plutonium?'' The nightmare scenario here is where a criminal at one of our ports who may think he is just helping a friend smuggle in drugs inadvertently helps smuggle in a weapon of mass destruction. That is a risk we cannot take.

I offered this amendment last year to address this threat and to ensure that serious felons are kept out of our ports. My amendment codified in statute the then-proposed TWIC regulations. As I said earlier, my amendment was unanimously adopted and was included in the Senate-passed version of the SAFE Port Act that passed 98 to 0. Unfortunately, my amendment was also completely gutted behind closed doors in the conference committee. The provision went from addressing a list of 20 serious felons to a list of just 4. These 4 felonies are so rare that the conference committee made the provision almost meaningless.

I am extremely disappointed by the stealth opposition to this measure. I cannot understand who would oppose banning serious felons from gaining secure access at our American ports. While no Senator has been willing to publicly oppose this measure, the longshoremen's labor union was more than happy to take credit for gutting the provision. Late last year, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union claimed credit for killing the provision in the SAFE Port conference committee. They stated in their newsletter:

We have heard rumors that Senator DeMint is particularly

angry with the union's successful lobbying effort to strip

his anti-labor provision. He may attempt to amend another

piece of legislation, so the union will stay on guard to

protect its members' interests.

Apparently, this union has stayed on guard because it was able to get five Senators to object to this vital homeland security measure when I tried to pass it the second time late last year.

I wish I could say that the unions would stop at fighting this legislation on the Senate floor, but they are also gearing up to mount a legal battle against Department of Homeland Security regulations. In response to a Wall Street Journal editorial on the subject, the union stated that the TWIC security regulations were `` . . . double jeopardy and unconstitutional.'' This is a clear indication that they have a legal challenge in mind. It seems clear that once longshoremen start applying for TWIC cards and some members are rejected because they are convicted felons, the labor unions are going to take the Department of Homeland Security to court and try to bog the regulations down in lengthy legal battles. The consequence will be that as we continue to fight this global war on terror, America's ports will be staffed by serious felons who cannot be trusted.

Some of my colleagues may be tempted to come to the defense of the longshoremen. They will say that the individuals in question have paid their debt to society and barring them is gutting our port workforce. They may also claim that the crimes listed in the Department of Homeland Security regulations are somehow not related to homeland security. These objections are just plain wrong.

I don't disagree that convicted felons should be given a second chance. I hope they get back on their feet and become productive members of their communities. What I disagree with is that we should give serious felons a pass, literally and figuratively, to access the most secure areas of America's port infrastructure. When they are fresh out of prison, we should not trust them with the most vulnerable areas of our ports. The stakes here are simply too high.

As for the concern that barring these individuals will empty the ranks of the port workforce, the facts don't agree. When the Department of Homeland Security issued nearly 350,000 ID cards for hazmat truckdrivers and subjected them to the same background check that is required by my amendment, only 3,100 were rejected. That is less than 1 percent. The fact is, we are talking about an isolated group of serious felons here, and the workforce in the United States is dynamic enough to supply the few thousand longshoremen who may be needed to replace those we let go.

Finally, some may say these felonies do not represent serious crimes. To that, I would ask any of my colleagues to tell me which individual he or she wants working at our ports where security is so important: Murderers? Extortionists? Drug dealers? Bomb makers? I just want to hear the rationale for trusting these criminals with our national security.

The bottom line is this: My amendment applies nearly the same protections to seaports that are already applied at our airports. It will make us safer by keeping individuals who have shown a willingness to break the law outside our ports. This is extremely important. We can spend all the money in our Treasury trying to screen cargo, but if we don't screen the people who

work at our ports, we cannot expect to be safe.

I do wish to thank several people for supporting this important policy. First, I thank the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, who was very helpful to me during the debate on the SAFE Port Act last year. I also thank the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, for his support. I should also say that the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, was also helpful in getting this provision into the bill.

This is a bipartisan proposal, and it should not be controversial. Americans expect us to check and verify the nature of the people who work at our seaports, and we have a responsibility to ensure that happens even if it upsets a labor union that feels compelled to protect the jobs of a small group of serious felons. My amendment codifies in statute these important security regulations, and I hope all of my colleagues will support it.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important measure, and I will be happy to work with the bill managers to arrange a time to come back to the floor if further debate is needed.

I thank the Chair for this time, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask for regular order in regards to my amendment No. 279. I have a modification of that amendment that I would like to send to the desk.

Madam President, if I can make a couple of comments about the modification, many will recall that this amendment is focused on our ports and the security of our ports. I think all of us are well aware that as a nation we see that our ports of entry, whether they be in Seattle, New York, or Charleston, SC, could be our most vulnerable points when it comes to smuggling in a weapon of mass destruction. We have committed many resources and lots of technology to try to detect radiation and other types of weapons that might be smuggled into our country that could hurt Americans and destroy American cities, and we are making some progress. But there is a lot more to be done.

All the spending, all the technology, all the equipment in the world will make no difference at all if we don't have the right people working in the secure areas of our ports. We need to make sure those people are the most trusted we have, just as we do in our airports. Our responsibility, whether it is homeland security as an administration or we as the Congress, is to make sure these people are screened and that we have the best and the most trusted individuals working in our secure areas. This is very important.

My amendment focuses on just that subject. It prohibits convicted felons

from working in the secure areas of our ports. This is common sense to most Americans, and I think it is common sense to most in this Senate because when this exact same amendment was offered last year, when we were dealing with port security specifically, everyone voted for this amendment in the Senate. Unfortunately, that amendment was stripped out when we had a conference with the House.

Many of my colleagues have encouraged me to reintroduce this amendment, Republicans and Democrats alike, and that is exactly what I have done. I understand the Senator from Hawaii is considering introducing a modification that would allow the Secretary to eliminate some of these felonies that we have listed in our amendment. Please keep in mind that the listed felonies are the exact same ones that homeland security has listed in the regulation that they have put in force at their agency. So this amendment puts in law what homeland security has already put into regulation.

The importance of putting it in law is that we already suspect this legislation will be contested; that there will be delays, there will be challenges, and we need to make sure that our ports are secure. The modification of my amendment would allow the Secretary to add felonies in the future which may become important but that are not now listed. We think it would be a huge mistake if we put in law something that allowed future administrations to eliminate felonies that are specifically laid out in regulation and in this amendment I am offering.

If anyone in the Senate would like to eliminate some of the felonies that we have listed, I would encourage them to come to the Senate floor and let's discuss those that they would like to eliminate. Maybe they would like to have some of these folks working in the secure areas of our ports, folks who have committed espionage, sedition, treason, terrorism, crimes involving transportation security, improper transport of hazardous material, unlawful use of an explosive device, bomb threats, or murder. These are specifically listed. If there are some of these that we think should be eliminated, let's discuss them.

Homeland Security has evaluated this and has listed these, just like we have for our airports, to keep our ports secure.

I am offering this modification that would allow our Secretary to add felonies but prohibit the elimination of these felonies which we think are so important to our security.

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to offer this modification, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I wish to comment on the second-degree amendment that has been offered by my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye.

I ask unanimous consent----

Three or 4 minutes.

I thank the Senator. I appreciate the Senator fitting me in. Again, I am speaking on the second degree to my amendment that is related to port security.

As we talked about here several times on the floor, and actually passed last year, it is important that the people who are working at our ports are people we can trust to use the equipment and technology they are given to keep the people of America safe.

The amendment I have offered is consistent with--in fact, it is identical to--the regulations that the Secretary and the homeland defense agency have put together so that we will not have convicted felons working in our ports around this country, so that we know the people who are operating our most secure areas are people who have not proven to be susceptible to crimes.

Senator Inouye is offering a second degree to my amendment that would allow the Secretary to change some of these crimes or felony convictions or to modify the rules. The Secretary of Homeland Security has not asked for this. In fact, he is supporting the amendment we have. I cannot imagine any future Secretary or future administration wanting to eliminate some of these felonies. The whole point of having this amendment and putting it into law is so that our agencies are not subject to lawsuits and constant harassment to change the criteria for working in the secure areas of our ports.

So I appeal to my fellow colleagues, a vote for this second-degree amendment is a vote to gut my amendment. It is a vote to allow in the future any administration or this administration to eliminate certain felonies that would keep convicted criminals from working in our ports. I encourage my colleagues not to vote for this second degree. Vote for my amendment, which everybody in this body has voted for unanimously in the past.

Again, I thank the Senator from Connecticut and Senator Collins for the opportunity to speak.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, may I have an additional 60 seconds?

I thank the Senator from Hawaii. I need to make an important point. The whole point of my amendment is to put a regulation in law so it cannot be changed and contested. The amendment offered by Senator Inouye basically guts the amendment and eliminates the reason for the amendment. It moves from being a law to something that is subject to the whims of any future administration or Secretary.

Our job here is certainly to be fair to workers, but our first priority is to protect the American people. Please, let's not allow convicted felons to work in our ports. Our job is to protect our ports. The second degree completely guts the whole idea of an amendment that makes this law.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about my amendment No. 253 that I would like to offer to the fiscal year 2007 omnibus spending bill.

My amendment seeks to strengthen the provisions in section 112 dealing with earmarks. According to the sponsors, the goal of this section is to turn off the hidden earmarks for this year's spending, but, unfortunately, it does not achieve that goal.

First, the language in H.J. Res. 20 say--on page 9--that hidden earmarks shall have no ``legal effect,'' but it does not clearly state that hidden earmarks shall have no guiding effect. These earmarks already have no legal effect. The point of this section was not to restate current law, but rather to make it clear that hidden earmarks have no effect, legal or otherwise.

As my colleagues know, over 95 percent of all earmarks are not even written into our appropriations bills. If we don't fix the language in this resolution we are debating today, all of these earmarks could continue. It is not certain that they will but they could and that is something we should fix to protect American taxpayers.

Our Federal agencies need to understand that hidden earmarks mean nothing and should be completely ignored in their decisionmaking. Our Federal agencies need to spend American tax dollars in ways that meet their core missions and serve true national priorities. Federal agencies should not feel pressure to fund special interest earmarks written by the powerful lawmakers who may cut their funding in retaliation.

Second, the language in H.J. Res. 20 applies to hidden earmarks in the fiscal year 2006 committee reports, but it does not turn off the hidden earmarks buried in committee reports prior to 2006 or those after it. In addition, the language does not turn off earmarks that may be requested through direct communications between lawmakers and our Federal agencies, either by phone or in private emails.

I understand that the Democratic leader is not going to allow any amendments. The Democratic leader scheduled this debate right before the Government's current funding expires so we will all be forced to accept it. This practice has been going on for years, and I am afraid it has become very destructive.

We are going to vote on whether to cut off debate on this measure today at 2:30 p.m. and I will be forced to oppose that motion. Since the Democratic leader has blocked me and other Senators from getting votes on our amendments, I cannot in good conscience vote to cut off debate. My amendment makes small changes to this resolution that would greatly improve its integrity, and there is still time to send this measure back to the House for its approval.

I also want to make it clear that while we have a responsibility in this body to address hidden earmarks in this resolution, the President also has a responsibility to do his part. In a letter that I sent last week, I called on him to instruct his agencies to ignore all earmark requests that do not have the force of law, and I believe he will. He said in the State of the Union Address this year that:

Over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of

the House and Senate--they are dropped into committee reports

that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk.

You didn't vote them into law. I didn't sign them into law.

Yet, they're treated as if they have the force of law. The

time has come to end this practice.

It appears as though our Federal agencies are beginning to follow through on the President's directive. Last week, a memo was circulated at the Department of Energy that said:

Because the funding provided by H.J. Res. 20 will not be

subject to non-statutory earmarks and the President's policy

on earmarks is clear, we must ensure that the Department only

funds programs or activities that are meritorious; the

Department itself is responsible for making those

determinations.

This is a great sign of progress and I hope other agencies will circulate their own memos to this effect. Our agencies have been under the thumb of powerful appropriators for so long, it may be difficult for them to transition to a world without earmarks. But that is what they must do because that is what the American people expect. Americans want their Federal tax dollars to be spent in competitive ways that meet the highest standards. If a project is going to get Federal funding, they expect--just like with a Federal contract--that the money go to the project with the most merit regardless of whose State or district it is in.

We are making great progress on reforming our budget process and reducing earmarks, and I urge my colleagues to help us continue this progress and win back the trust of the American people.

Mr. President, I wish to make a few additional comments about my amendment No. 253 to the fiscal year 2007 omnibus spending bill. This is an amendment that would strengthen a provision in the bill that is under section 112. This gets back to the earmark discussion. The Senate can be proud of the debate and the votes we have taken to disclose earmarks and to eliminate the hidden earmarks that have been added in conference for years. Unfortunately, the language in this omnibus bill continues the status quo. It says that earmarks have no legal effect. It does not take the debate we have all agreed on and make it a prohibition that earmarks cannot be added in conference.

We know that 95 percent of earmarks are in report language. They do not have the force of law. Yet, through intimidation and other ways, Congress has been able to get the executive branch to follow through on these earmarks for years. My amendment would simply go back to what we have already agreed on as a Senate and prohibit these wasteful, hidden earmarks that waste billions of taxpayer dollars every year from being included in report language.

I am encouraged that the White House is responding. We have a memo that the Energy Department sent out last year to its managers telling them not to give preferential treatment to nonbinding, nonlegal congressional earmarks; that earmarks should be meritorious, as they said in their memo, before they are considered. This would free up all the Federal agencies to focus their spending and their time on Federal priorities, not just specific special interest earmarks that a Member of Congress happens to attach to a bill.

I understand the majority leader is not going to allow any amendments. That is very regrettable, particularly since it leaves out something on which I think we all agree.

The cloture motion we have been asked to vote on at 2:30 is a motion to cut off debate. That means we can no longer talk about the provisions in ways that could improve this bill. For that reason, I am going to have to vote against cloture and hope the majority leader will reconsider, particularly amendments like this which are easy and which this Chamber has already voted unanimously to support.

Mr. President, with that, I yield back.

I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak 10 minutes in morning business.

Ten minutes.

Madam President, I take a few minutes today, despite my hoarse voice, to discuss the fiscal year 2007 spending resolution that we will be debating next week.

The operations of the Federal Government are currently being funded by a temporary spending measure that expires on February 15, and the proposed resolution will fund the Government for the rest of the year.

It is important we understand how we got to this point. Last year, we did not debate and pass all of our annual spending bills before the November elections. When we came back after the election for the lameduck session, a few Members worked successfully to stop Congress from passing a last-minute, foot-tall omnibus spending bill--like this one--that would have been filled with thousands of wasteful earmarks. As a result, we passed an earmark-free stopgap spending measure that, if continued, would have saved the American taxpayer some $17 billion.

There were several media reports last year that said Republicans were trying to push this debate into the future so Democrats would have to clean up this mess. That may have been true for some, but it was never true for me. My goal has always been to stop wasteful earmarks. I am happy to work with Members in either party to get that done. That is why I offered to work with the Democratic leader to pass a clean resolution this year that would not contain any new earmarks and that would keep spending at last year's levels.

While the Democratic leader did not work with me on this measure, I am pleased to say that it does not contain any new earmarks. Let me say that again so that there won't be any confusion. There are no new earmarks in this spending resolution. I applaud the Democrats for continuing the progress we started last year.

As my colleagues can see, this resolution is only 137 pages. That can be compared to where we were headed before we were able to stop the earmarks. It is a major improvement over the last omnibus spending bill we passed that has over 1,600 pages.

Let me make another point clear if I could. This resolution does not stop the administration from enacting the hundreds and even thousands of earmarks

that are not written into this bill. As my colleagues know, over 95 percent of all earmarks never show up in our bills but are buried in hidden committee reports that do not carry the force of law. This resolution says--the one we are considering next week--that the earmarks contained in fiscal year 2006, in the committee reports in 2006, shall have no legal effect. That is a good thing, but those earmarks had no legal effect anyway. The administration was not bound by them last year and is not bound by them now.

Also, this resolution is completely silent with respect to the earmarks in fiscal year 2007 in those committee reports. I am not sure why these reports were left out of this measure, but it appears to be a glaring mistake.

The supporters of this resolution say it is earmark-free. While that is technically true, earmarks can still sneak in the back door. I praise Democrats when they call for a moratorium on earmarks, but this resolution does not actually achieve that goal. That is why I am sending a letter to the President today asking him to do his part by prohibiting anyone in his administration from giving preference to any earmark request that is not legally binding. We need to put a stop to committee report earmarks. We need to end the practice where a Member calls up a Federal agency and threatens its funding if it does not fund that Member's pet project.

Our Federal agencies need to be free to use American tax dollars in ways that meet true national priorities rather than serving one special interest or another. The President has the power to stop secret earmarks. He said in his State of the Union that he wants to stop them. I hope he will do so.

This spending resolution has several other flaws. For example, it uses budget gimmicks to hide its true cost. The proponents say it does not exceed the budget, but that is less than honest. First, it cuts spending on national defense programs with the expectation that funds will be added as emergency spending later this year. This is not the time to cut defense and security spending while adding social programs. It is not honest to hide spending this way. Second, the resolution also pays for new spending by cutting funding in budget accounts that are already empty. These are phony offsets, and they should not be used.

This resolution not only pretends to reduce spending in places where it does not, it also fails to reduce spending where it should. First, the resolution leaves out thousands of congressional earmarks worth billions of dollars. Rather than passing those savings along to American taxpayers, it spends them on other programs. Second, this resolution fails to eliminate a number of programs which were proposed for termination by the President and agreed to last year by the House and the Senate Committee on Appropriations. These programs should be terminated, but this resolution fails to do so.

There are a number of problems with this resolution. I hope we can fully debate this measure and offer amendments to make it stronger.

I understand the Democratic leader does not intend to allow amendments, which is very unfortunate since we have plenty of time to consider and debate them. The current stopgap spending measure lasts for another week, and the House can easily take up our final bill and pass it in a matter of hours. I am glad there are no new earmarks written into the text of this resolution, and I thank my colleagues for that, but if we are not allowed to fix other problems in this resolution, I will not be able to support it.

As I am sure many of my colleagues remember, I came to the floor a few weeks ago and had a spirited and important debate with the Democratic leader on how the Senate will disclose earmarks. We worked through that issue and came to a bipartisan agreement that resulted in earmark disclosure rules that were unanimously approved. It was a clear example of how this body can and should work together. I believe we can do that again on this resolution. I hope the Democratic leader will reconsider his position and work with us to allow a limited number of amendments.

Madam President, I yield the floor and the remainder of my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, how much time does the minority have?

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Colorado be able to speak for 10 minutes following my remarks and the remarks of Senator Coburn.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about one of the most important issues of our time: the worldwide war on terror.

I have to say I was disappointed to read in this morning's Roll Call that many of my Democratic colleagues are using this debate for the 2008 elections rather than focusing on the real damage that the resolution we have been discussing will do to our national security.

One of our greatest Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, once said, ``It is not the critic who counts. The credit,'' he said, ``belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming.

``The credit,'' Roosevelt said, belongs to the man ``who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly.''

At this very moment, our Commander in Chief and those he commands are daring greatly.

Our men and women in uniform are paying with blood, sweat, and tears. Yet many in this body prefer to sit in the stands and offer criticism rather than support.

For the past 50 years, the Middle East has been a cauldron of brutality, war, and despair. The region's instability has threatened the entire globe and reached our shores on 9/11 with a stark awakening.

This is why we are involved in the Middle East. The future security of our homeland is tied directly to a successful outcome not only in Iraq but in Afghanistan, Lebanon, the Palestinian territory, and a number of Middle East countries that harbor evil men who foment hate through a perverted version of Islam.

Yet as our efforts in Iraq encounter fierce resistance from a determined and evil enemy, support for our efforts has waned here in Congress. Instead, many of my colleagues prefer to support a nonbinding resolution that would express disapproval of the President's plan to reinforce our troops in Iraq.

Voting for this resolution is not leadership, it is criticism-- criticism without the courage of offering real solutions. While this resolution may be toothless by force of law, its symbolism is dangerous. Voting to condemn the President's plan is a vote of no confidence in the mission we have told our troops to fight and die for. But it is also a slap in the face to General Petraeus just days after we voted unanimously to support his leadership of our troops in Iraq.

``Godspeed, General,'' was what one of my colleagues said before introducing the very resolution that would undermine the general's authority and his plan for victory.

This is not leadership. We were elected to make tough decisions and that requires understanding our choices, selecting the best choice, and then following through. But I am afraid the critics in this body do not acknowledge the real choices before us. There are only three:

First, to continue the unworkable status quo; second, to admit defeat and withdraw; third, to renew our strength until we win.

I respect my colleagues who disagree with the President's strategy in Iraq, but only if they exercise leadership and support an alternative solution, one that proposes a serious path to victory, or announces defeat and ends our involvement immediately, not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East, because America will no longer have any credibility to carry out our work in any part of the world.

If my colleagues do not support sending reinforcements to Iraq, they should introduce legislation blocking that action. While I believe this is shortsighted and wrong, it would at least be genuine leadership.

My hope is we will stop trying to second guess past decisions in order to lay blame and instead remember we are locked in a struggle much larger than Iraq. It is a struggle of security, hope, and freedom versus hate, despair, and fear. The battlefield is the entire world.

We must understand the stakes and demonstrate real leadership. This is not the President's war, it is freedom's war, and we all share the responsibility for the outcome.

A century later, Teddy Roosevelt is still correct. The critic ``who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better'' is destined to be relegated to that terrible place ``with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.''

There is only one policy worthy of the blood and sweat of our troops: a policy that completes our mission with dignity, honor, and victory.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from Texas, and I would like to add my comments to his. We are certainly discussing probably one of the most deadly serious issues that I have been a part of since being in the Congress. I must start by expressing my respect for the Senators who are proposing this resolution. I know their intent is good. They have heartfelt concerns about what we are doing.

But what I would like to do is remind all of us that our role is a role of being leaders, not just being critics. As elected officials, we know what it is like to have critics second-guess all the decisions we make, but our job as Senators is to be leaders; and to be leaders, we have to make good decisions. If we make good decisions, we have to know what our real choices are. I am afraid those who are proposing this resolution are not considering the real choices because we can keep the status quo, we can withdraw and be defeated, or we can continue until we win and accomplish our goals in Iraq.

This resolution is a resolution of defeat and disgrace. There is no other way it could come out. That is the choice they are making. That is the decision they are making because we know if we withdraw and leave this to the Iraqis when they are not ready, we will lose all. Not only will we be disgraced as a nation, but we will have probably the biggest catastrophe--human catastrophe as well as political catastrophe--in the Middle East that is going to occur. We have to discuss the real implications of that choice.

I oppose this resolution because it does not support our mission, it does not support success, and it makes the decision for defeat. Real leaders would come up with a plan of action that they follow through on. And whether we agree with the President or not, he has put a plan on the table and he intends to follow through on it with all the advice he can get from his military people. Our role is not just to criticize that, but if we don't agree, it is to come up with another plan, propose it, and our responsibility is to sell it to the American people--not just to criticize, not to come up with resolutions that don't mean anything, intended to embarrass the President. But what it really does is deteriorate the morale of our troops.

I know we are frustrated with this war, and the fear of failure is all around us. But we cannot digress into being critics in this body. Our job is to lead.

I want to conclude this morning with some comments from the soldiers. I know other Senators have called parents who have soldier sons and daughters who have been killed. I have not had one who told me to get out of Iraq. I have had a lot of them tell me: Win. That is how to honor the sacrifice is to win.

SPC Peter Manna:

If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything we

have done here is all in vain.

We have a number of these, but I don't have time to read them all.

SGT Manuel Sahagun said:

One thing I don't like is when people back home say they

support the troops but they don't support the war. If they're

going to support us, support us all the way.

Americans are not against this war; they are against losing. They need to know we can win it.

General Petraeus, the best general that we have, whom we have just approved, confirmed in the Senate, has told us that we can succeed with the President's plan. This is our last best hope to leave Iraq as a free democracy and to help stabilize the Middle East. The other choice is defeat and disgrace.

Mr. President, I call on all of my Senate colleagues not to support this resolution and to act as leaders: to put forward a plan or support the one that the President has put forward.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.

There is 5 minutes left?

Mr. President, I intend to vote against the bill before us today because it really does not do anything to help low wage workers in this country in supporting families, buying health care, or giving them the flexibility they need to deal with family issues as well as hold a full-time job. I have consistently opposed a Federal wage mandate because I believe it is bad policy that hurts the very people we are trying to help with this bill. Despite that, I have sought to engage in constructive debate on this bill and offer amendments that would make it better. Unfortunately, over the course of this discussion, I have been forced to conclude that this whole debate is--let's just say less than honest. What we are talking about here in the Senate is not really about helping low-income workers; this is about mandating a starting wage, not a minimum wage, in a select group of States. This is a mandated starting wage because the facts show that two-thirds of minimum wage workers earn a raise within a year. We also know that most of these are working for restaurants and small businesses, and most of them are teenagers or young folks working part time.

The Democratic proposal before us targets certain States disproportionately while leaving many other States completely or relatively unaffected. If passed, my home State of South Carolina would be subjected to a 41-percent increase in the Federal mandate and the inevitable job loss that will come with this. However, States such as California, Vermont, Massachusetts, Oregon, and others would not be required to raise their minimum wage at all. This is because 28 States plus the District of Columbia have passed laws raising their minimum wage above the federally mandated $5.15 per hour. Some of those States, such as the ones I just mentioned, have gone well beyond the $7.25 which this Federal mandate will implement.

If we are to have a minimum wage at all, it is better to have a Federalist system of government and individual States could continue to set their own minimum wage levels, rather than the Federal Government. After all, different States have very different economies as well as very different costs of living. We know that a dollar will go a lot further in San Antonio than in San Francisco, and we need to recognize that. Mr. President, $7.25 in San Francisco is not a bit of help, but in another State that is a lot more money.

To that effect, I have offered an amendment to the current proposal that would have raised the minimum wage $2.10 in every State across this land. Had my amendment been adopted, this bill would have at least been more fair in the way it imposed its unfunded mandate. Ironically, the motion to strike my amendment was based on the fact that it was an unfunded Federal mandate, which is precisely what the underlying bill is at this point.

We have tried to add some other provisions. There is some tax relief for small businesses that mostly hire minimum wage workers, but we have not gone nearly far enough.

I heard my dear colleague from Massachusetts oppose very vocally any tax relief for small businesses that will bear the brunt of an increased minimum wage. I think it is just important to point out what we are trying to do. This is a chart which compares the amount of, what some of us would call porkbarrel spending for what we call the Boston Big Dig. The Federal Government's part of bailing this out is $8.5 billion. What we are asking for, for thousands of businesses and millions of low wage workers across this country, is tax relief of less than that, that would help people keep more workers and be more profitable.

I understand I am running out of time. I hope this whole debate about helping low wage workers would include those areas which will really help people who are working full time at $8, $10, $12 an hour and having a difficult time getting by: If we could make that health care more accessible and more affordable; if we could do for them what we do for Federal Government workers and give them flexibility so if they need an afternoon off to drive on a field trip one day on one week, they can work an extra 4 or 5 hours the next week to make it up, then they call it even--there is no overtime, there is no penalty. Government workers get it, but we will not give that same benefit to workers all across this country.

I am going to vote against cloture on this bill because cloture is designed to cut off debate. Many of the amendments that would help low wage workers are being eliminated. What it comes down to is just an unfunded mandate on several States, leaving out others.

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

I thank the Chair.

Well, here we are again. A couple of weeks ago, we were here in the Senate Chamber talking about the need to have full disclosure of earmarks--pet projects that are added into bills, only to find that the underlying bill only disclosed about 5 percent of all the earmarks. After a lot of procedural maneuvering and give-and-take, fortunately, Republicans and Democrats came together and realized that if we are going to do this--tell the American people we are going to disclose earmarks--then we should do it, and we should do it for all earmarks, and we should be open and honest about what we do. Fortunately, we fixed that problem. But here we are again today.

Now we are talking about raising the minimum wage for American workers. We have had passionate pleas, which are warranted. There are too many people in this country who don't make a livable wage. We, as Senators, Congressmen, and as Americans, should do everything we can to help people earn a livable wage and better.

There have been a lot of passionate speeches on the floor about, What do we do with a single mom with two kids working at the minimum wage? How can they possibly get by? It is true. It is very true. But as we look at this minimum wage bill and as we look out on America and promise to give every minimum wage worker a raise, we find that, if you really look at the bill, less than half of the workers who are working at the minimum wage will receive a $2.10 increase. Many will receive nothing at all. So the amendment I have introduced is one that would give 100 percent of Americans working at the minimum wage a raise because that is, in effect, what we are promising as we debate on the floor. This amendment is called minimum fairness for workers. That is what it is all about. The idea is that every American working at minimum wage will receive a $2.10 increase as we have promised.

It is important to realize that America is very diverse and different. States have very different costs of living. As we look across the country, there are many States that have a much higher than average cost of living, and some have a much lower cost of living. Actually, more than half of the States in this country--29--have passed a minimum wage that is higher than the $5.15 national Federal minimum wage.

We see, if you look at Massachusetts, for instance--the State of Senator Kennedy, who has been a great defender of the minimum wage and the average worker, which I commend him on--it is one of the higher cost of living States in this country. They have raised their minimum wage to $7.50. I think we would all agree that a single mom with two children living in Boston, MA, making $7.50 an hour is not making a livable wage. The fact is, that same family living in South Carolina and making $5.15 an hour is doing better than those who are making $7.50 in Massachusetts because of the cost of living. Many of the Southern States have a lower average cost of living--cost of an apartment, cost of food, and cost of transportation and taxes; it is much lower. So many States across the country have looked at their cost of living and have raised their minimum wage higher than the national average because of that cost of living.

As we look at raising the national minimum wage again--and we know it has been years since we have done that--we need to realize that the cost of living across this country is different. I commend States such as Massachusetts that have recognized that and passed a minimum wage that is higher than the national average. But

it is not fair and it is not honest for us to have a national minimum wage debate and leave more than half of the minimum wage workers out of this whole promise of a wage increase. It is important for us to look across the country and see what this minimum wage bill will do if we don't adopt the amendment I am talking about. All of the States here on the chart in blue are States where the minimum wage workers will receive less than a one-dime--10 cents--increase if we pass this bill. Most of them will receive nothing at all--after all of the promises. These are some of the highest cost of living States in the country.

My distinguished colleague from Massachusetts talked about the importance of raising the minimum wage. I know he would agree that someone making $7.50 an hour in Boston, MA, is not making a livable wage. If we are going to promise to help these people, the people working in Massachusetts deserve a raise as much as the people working in South Carolina. But under this bill, the minimum wage worker in Massachusetts will receive no increase; Vermont will receive no increase; Connecticut, Rhode Island, Washington State, Oregon, and California will receive no increase at all. Illinois will receive a dime. Yet with all this big national debate and hoopla, which has become symbolic of trying to help low-income Americans make more money, we know as a body that only a fraction of 1 percent of Americans working at the minimum wage will get it.

Yet we are trying to tell them this bill is going to raise their standard of living, and we know that less than half of the minimum wage workers in this country are going to receive a $2.10 increase. This amendment is about 100 percent, just as we did 100 percent of earmarks. We got together, we realized the underlying bill didn't work, and we did the right thing.

I think there are much better ways to help people earn a livable wage than mandating that they get an increase. But if we are going to do it, let's do it right and let's be fair to all Americans. If we promise an increase for minimum wage workers, let's give every American working at the minimum wage a $2.10 increase so that a person working in Massachusetts with a higher cost of living would get a raise, just as in Louisiana or Alabama or South Carolina. Every minimum wage worker across this land would have a $2.10 increase.

I don't think that is too much to ask. If the Senate is going to spend 2 weeks talking about it, if we are going to have these impassioned pleas to help minimum wage workers, how can we leave half of minimum wage workers out of this whole process and pretend to be helping everyone? It doesn't make sense. This is about 100 percent. It is about fairness. It is about looking at these cameras in this Chamber and telling people the truth.

If we are going to pass a minimum wage, if we think we are doing the right thing by mandating that we raise the minimum wage above where it is across this land, then let's have it apply to 50 States, 100 percent of our workers. That is the only fair and honest way.

Again, I commend the States that have had the good judgment and the wisdom to recognize that their cost of living is higher, but if we don't include them here, then we have done an injustice to their workers.

I encourage all of my colleagues to look at this amendment. This is not a trick. It is clear and simple. Every minimum wage worker in America will get a $2.10 increase if we adopt this amendment and then pass this final bill.

I will make a commitment to the Senator from Massachusetts and to others here that while I have not supported this idea of mandating a minimum wage as the best way to improve and increase salaries, if we are fair, if we adopt this amendment, I will vote for the final bill for raising the minimum wage because it will be fair to all Americans, and I will encourage my colleagues who have not supported it in the past to be together as a Senate.

Let's not come out and make an impassioned plea to raise the minimum wage in one State but not another. That doesn't make sense, and it is not fair and it is not open. It is about 100 percent, and I encourage 100 percent of my colleagues to look at this amendment, do the right thing, and include every minimum wage worker.

I yield back my time to the Senator from Wyoming.

Yes.

Madam President, this is a good debate and I think it is an important debate. I appreciate the points of Senator Kennedy. Many of them I agree with, but it is my hope that those same points will apply to the many States, such as Massachusetts and Washington State and California and many other States so that those people working at the minimum wage in those States will receive a minimum wage, too.

I appreciate the fact that he has recognized that States such as Massachusetts did respond to the higher cost of living that their workers face by passing their own minimum wage. I think if we look across the country we will see that, again, 29 States have taken that action because it does cost more to live there. He points out that in the past I have not supported the increase in the minimum wage. It is not completely true, but many times I have not supported it because it has not been fair. It does not apply to all American workers.

As the Senator from Wyoming just pointed out, if these bills that mandate wage increases do not include some provisions that help small businesses stay profitable, then they cannot hire these minimum wage workers. Many times they are teenagers. Many times they are trainees. We want to encourage every small business in this country to bring in as many workers as it can to train them and develop them because all the statistics tell us that folks who start at the minimum wage are generally only making it a few months before they prove that they can do the work and move on. It is a way to get a lot of people into the workforce.

I think it is important to point out, as the Senator said I never supported a minimum wage, that I did, in fact, last year. The Family Prosperity Act was a package, a compromise package that raised the minimum wage just as we are talking about now, although it did not do it for every American. It eliminated the death tax, which adversely affects so many small businesses in the event of the death of an owner, whether it is a farm or small business. Many low-wage workers lose their jobs in the process of those businesses or farms closing. We packaged those together so we could do both: we could help the worker, but we could also make sure these small businesses continue to survive so they can hire those workers. There were other tax provisions in the Family Prosperity Act, but it was a good bill.

This bill was not blocked by Republicans. It was proposed by Republicans and blocked by Democrats. It was a sad time when we saw in order to score political points that we turned our backs on workers in order to avoid giving small businesses the provision on the death tax that would allow families to continue to operate businesses.

I would like to summarize my amendment so it is not misrepresented. It is not a trick. We are talking on the floor of the Senate about giving minimum wage workers a raise of $2.10. States have already passed minimum wage laws, and some of them are different. In most cases it is because of the higher cost of living.

If we come in and raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 in a number of States, South Carolina and Massachusetts will have essentially the same minimum wage--maybe a quarter difference. But a minimum wage worker living in Boston, MA, faces tremendously higher costs than a minimum wage worker who lives and works in Greenville, SC. If we are going to be fair, and if we are going to make all these speeches on the floor of the Senate that we are going to help minimum wage workers, it does not make sense to leave out over half of the minimum wage workers in this country and go home and pretend that we have done something good.

I have told the Senator that while I have opposed the strategies of wage mandates in the past, that if we are fair, if this bill includes 100 percent of minimum wage workers, I will not only support it, the final bill, I will encourage my colleagues to support it because it is the right thing to do. I believe if we were all speaking openly and honestly, we could say that even $7.50 an hour in Boston, MA, is not a liveable wage. If you took that up to $9.60, hopefully, we are getting at the point where people can survive. But $9.60 in Boston, MA, is no more money than $7.25 in South Carolina.

Let's be fair to workers. Let's use what has already been started by the States, and that is recognizing cost of living to help every American worker.

Again, this is just about simple fairness, as the Senator from Massachusetts has said. If we are going to promise an increase of $2.10 to minimum wage workers, let's do it for 100 percent of the workers in every State of our Union. Let's give them that increase today.

I encourage my colleagues to not look at the past. If we can support fairness together, let's all vote together to give every American minimum wage worker a $2.10 increase. That is my amendment. I encourage my colleagues to support it.

I yield and reserve the remainder of my time.

How much time do I have?

Thank you.

Again, I thank the Senator for his good debate. I appreciate this opportunity. I think if we listen to what each other is saying--I appreciate the Senator's concern for South Carolina workers and I hope he appreciate my concern for Massachusetts. As Senator Kennedy has said, you set the livable wage in Massachusetts at over $11, so $7.50 an hour for the minimum wage is certainly not acceptable. I do not think anyone would argue that that is enough, and we need to do better. I would hope no Member of the Senate would be concerned that a worker mandating over $7.50 is a problem, and particularly in high cost of living States.

There are a number of things that have been said we need to think about because we put up that my amendment would cause States which have already passed their minimum wage to have to pay more. In fact, this underlying bill is going to do that to many States. There are many States in this country which have passed their own minimum wage that is over $5.15 but is under the current mandate in this bill. So when we pass it, we are going to override the legislatures and the people in many States. That is part of this whole argument.

Now, in this day and time, with the varying costs of living across this country and 29 States already passing their own minimum wage, does it continue to make sense for us to establish a one-size-fits-all minimum wage for this whole country? I think not. But I do think if we are going to stand on the floor of the Senate and argue on behalf of the American worker, the minimum wage worker in this country, and promise to raise that minimum wage, then we should do it fairly and equitably across this country.

Again, I encourage my colleagues to realize what this bill does is override States. That is the whole idea of the Federal minimum wage, to say we do not believe States will do the right thing, so we are going to. But if we are going to do the right thing, let's make it 100 percent. Let's not make another false promise to the American people. If we are going to raise the minimum wage $2.10, let's do it across the entire country.

So again, I appeal to my colleagues. If we are going to do it, let's do it right, let's do it fairly, and let's meet this promise to every American minimum wage worker.

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

I yield back my time.

Madam President, I move to waive the applicable section of the Budget Act.

Mr. President, I, too, would like to speak on the line- item veto amendment. This body has made a lot of progress in being much more transparent in how we spend America's money. We can see, if we look back over the last couple of weeks, that America appreciates what we have tried to do to take these earmarks or these pet projects or designated spending, whatever we call it, and make it available for every American to see. We could tell from our e-mails and letters and the reports in the media that this was something which made Congress look as if we were genuinely trying to be much more open and honest about how we spend America's money. The amendment before us now, what we refer to as the line-item veto or line-item rescission, would actually make this whole process much more accountable.

I was interested in hearing my colleague make his point that the President could take one good item and put it with a really bad item and send it over to us and force us to make a decision. But let's think about what the President's options are now. We can send thousands of earmarks over in a bill to the President, and he only has two choices-- to take it or leave it, to take the whole thing or veto the whole thing--and work that has been done here and in the House for months either has to be accepted in total or thrown out in total. That doesn't make any sense.

I will use the exact argument my colleague did. We should not be able to package all this good with all this bad and try to force it down the President's throat without the ability to have the checks and balances, the discussions that are needed so the American people can see we have thoroughly vetted these ideas and we are spending their money wisely.

This line-item rescission package I support because this Congress needs the interaction with the President and the working relationship that would be caused by this particular bill. It allows the President, no more than four times a year, to go through our spending bills and to send those things back which he thinks are not national priorities. This is not real complicated. He does not veto what we send him; he just gets a recommendation in the process. And since his agencies in the executive branch are charged with carrying this out and spending this money, the President needs to be engaged in the process in more than a take-it-or-leave-it type of relationship. So no more than four times a year, the President can put together those things which he thinks are not national priorities and send them to the Congress. And all this bill does is guarantee that they get a vote.

If the President tries to use this against individual Members, I know this body well enough to know that we are not going to pass his request.

Any President that tries to do that for political purposes will find his rescission package, or that his recommendations to Congress will be dispensed with very quickly.

This is important not only for this President but for many Presidents in the future. We know as Senators and Congressmen that over the next several decades this country is going to be faced with incredible fiscal crises. We have no idea how we are going to pay for Medicare and Medicaid in the future or Social Security. It is going to become more important every year that we cut wasteful spending and that we work with the President and with the House to do everything we can to cut those things that are not necessary.

In many bills--and we know it happens--many items, earmarks, are voted on for political reasons, and it is a good idea to allow the President to package those things and send them back to us so that we can vote on them and move them out if they are not national priorities.

This is not dissimilar at all to the BRAC process we created to eliminate unnecessary military bases. We found that Congressmen and Senators were not going to vote on an individual basis to eliminate a base in one State because we knew that then the Congressmen or Senators could vote to eliminate one in our State. It was a political dilemma that caused us for years to leave bases open that should have been closed.

It is the same with Federal programs and spending year after year. One project might be in my State and one in another Senator's State. None of us are willing to step up and eliminate projects one at a time. We cannot vote on them that way. This line-item rescission opportunity is for the President to take those things that we know are not national priorities, put them in a package, and send them back over for us to vote on. We should not lose this opportunity.

We need the President working with the Congress to eliminate wasteful spending--not this year or next year but for decades to come. This may be our only opportunity in a long time to make it happen. We have made tremendous progress on identifying the problems with corruption, wasteful spending, identifying earmarks, and all this

does is allow us to take it a step further and make sure we have the checks and balances from Congress and the executive branch to eliminate those things we know should not be in there and the President knows should not be in there.

Mr. President, before I engage in my business, I also would like to say to Senator Kerry that I, too, am honored to serve with you, and I appreciate the remarks that have been made about you today.

Amendments Nos. 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, and 162, en bloc, to

Amendment No. 100

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside and that I be permitted to offer amendments Nos. 155 through 162, en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues here on the floor for allowing me to offer these amendments. I know the leadership on the other side is anxious to end debate on this bill and move on to other things, so I will keep any remarks as brief as possible. I would be happy to work with the managers of the bill, the Senators from Massachusetts and Wyoming, to work out additional time for debate if that is necessary.

The minimum wage is a debate about fairness. Many Americans see a minimum wage as a fundamental right and something that should be increased to keep up with rising costs. Many economists see it differently. They understand it is only an entry wage and that with on- the-job training, most people do not stay at the minimum wage for very long. Economists also understand that very few people in America actually earn the minimum wage which is currently at $5.15 per hour. Those who do are mostly teenagers, part-time workers, second earners in a home, or workers with very limited skills.

Nevertheless, this debate has become a measure of how much we care for workers, and that is what this debate should be about. If we are going to be serious about helping Americans earn higher wages and helping them keep more of what they earn, we must consider additional measures to ensure American prosperity.

That is why I am offering these amendments today. They will not only ensure fairness for workers, they will also help protect small businesses that employ them. Americans realize that if we pass laws here in Washington that are aimed at helping workers but end up eliminating their jobs, we have done more harm than good.

My first amendment, No. 158, would raise the effective minimum wage in each State by $2.10 per hour. Now, I know most people listening believe that is what this amendment does, but far from it. Without this amendment, the underlying legislation will partially exempt minimum wage workers in high-cost States that already have State minimum wage rates greater than $5.15 per hour, and it will completely exempt minimum wage workers in the highest cost States that have State minimum wage rates greater than $7.25. Many States--actually, 29 States--have already recognized that their cost of living is much higher than other States, and these States have passed their own minimum wage increases. So the cost of living all around the country is quite different.

If you look at some high-cost cities and States, such as Boston, MA, for instance--35 percent higher cost of living than the national average--and contrast that with Alabama, Mobile, AL--it is minus 11 percent of the national average--you have a large swing in the cost of living. Effectively, what we have is while Massachusetts now has a minimum wage of $7.50 an hour, that does not do a worker as much good in Massachusetts as $5.15 does for a worker in Alabama; the cost of living is significantly different.

As we look around the country, we see the highest cost States are Massachusetts and Connecticut and Vermont and New York. You can go over to Illinois at 17 percent. We get down in the Southern States, and we see minus 10 percent of the national average in Texas or minus 11 in Arkansas or minus 12 in Oklahoma. The States and the cost of living across our country are very different. Thankfully, a number of States-- 29 of them--have recognized that and raised their minimum wage.

But if we are going to make a promise to American workers that we are going to raise their salary, particularly minimum wage workers, then I believe we should do it for all workers. We should look at how this underlying bill is really going to affect workers. The blue States here are States that get a small increase or less than 10 cents from this $2.10 we are talking about.

A few minutes ago, the Senator from Washington State was giving a passionate plea that minimum wage workers get an increase, but Washington State minimum wage workers will get no increase from this bill. The same for Oregon and California. Our dear colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, is one of the most passionate advocates of increasing the minimum wage. Yet this bill we are going to pass today will not give one minimum wage worker in Massachusetts an increase. They get nothing. All of the blue States, the high-cost States where an increase is the most important--Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island--they get no increase. Illinois gets less than 10 cents from the $2.10 increase. So the blue States where workers really could use an additional increase, particularly minimum wage workers, get little or nothing.

When we look at the white States, these are the States which don't get the whole $2.10 increase. The red States are the only States where the whole $2.10 increase will actually go to minimum wage workers.

So in effect, we are making a lot of false promises here today. A lot of the debate, the most passionate debate, is coming from Senators who represent States which will get little or nothing from this minimum wage increase.

I believe we should do what the States do and recognize that the cost of living is different. My amendment is very simple. It says: Let's make all of the States the same color. Let's make them red or blue. But every minimum wage worker in this country should get a $2.10 increase, and that is what my amendment would do. It would be fair to all workers.

That first amendment was actually my first and second amendment. We have two versions of that, Nos. 158 and 159.

My third amendment, No. 155, would expand access to affordable health care to millions of Americans. It would do three things. And we do need to keep in mind that one of the biggest costs for workers, particularly those working at the minimum wage level, is health care. Very few have health insurance. Many are part-time workers. This amendment would do three things:

First, it would allow workers to purchase less expensive coverage anywhere in the country. It would also allow them to use the funds in their health savings accounts to pay for their health insurance policy, and it would allow them to roll over, or keep, $500 in unspent benefits in their flexible spending accounts. Many Federal employees now have flexible spending accounts, and they are starting to realize that even though it is their own money, the way this law is set up, if they don't spend it all, they lose what is left at the end of the year. This amendment would fix that.

If Congress is serious about helping American workers, it must do something to address the rising costs of health care. By allowing Americans to purchase health coverage across State lines, they would gain access to less expensive health plans.

My fourth amendment would pick up on part of the other amendment and focus specifically on flexible spending accounts, allowing workers to keep up the $500 that is unspent in those accounts at the end of the year so they do not have to spend it on something they do not need or actually lose it. Again, it is their money. We should not take it from them.

My fifth amendment is tax deferment for high-growth small business companies. Most of the jobs in this country are actually created by small companies that are growing at a 10-percent rate or higher. We have identified--and this is something we have been working on for years--what is called a capital funding gap that prevents a lot of small businesses from getting the capital they need to continue their growth. Actually, if you go back to the 107th Congress, I worked on this when I was on the House side with Senator Kerry and Senator Snowe who introduced this same legislation to help small businesses keep some of their cash in order to grow their business. It simply allows them to defer Federal taxes if they are plowing it into the growth of their companies. This is very relevant to low-income workers because many low-income workers, even minimum wage workers, work for small businesses that are growing.

This would help those companies grow by deferring taxes. They have to pay all this money back with interest, but it allows them to continue to grow, using their own cash flow.

My sixth amendment, No. 159, is an important amendment for a lot of hourly workers who are union members. It prevents labor unions from using members' union dues to lobby Congress without prior separate and written consent of that member. Union dues, like taxes, are compulsory for union workers. This is the same amendment I offered to the lobby reform legislation, but since it was not given consideration, I am offering it again. This is not only an ethics and lobbying issue but a fairness issue for millions of union members in America. If they were not forced to pay for things they do not support, they could save a lot of money with lower union dues.

My seventh amendment is updating the small business minimum wage exemption. The last time this exemption was raised, the minimum wage was $3.35. This simply allows small companies not to pay the minimum wage, particularly those offering other benefits--tips or health benefits--and gives an exemption. Right now, it is only $500,000 a year. We raise that to $1 million with this amendment, allowing the small businesses some flexibility in hiring teenagers and other workers at the trainee level.

The last amendment, my eighth amendment, and the final amendment, repeals flextime benefits for Federal employees after 1 year if comparable benefits are not extended to private sector workers. A lot of people who are opposed to this flextime idea don't point out in the Senate that all Federal workers have this flextime benefit. Most will say it is truly a benefit. So it gets back to an issue of fairness. This amendment simply says if we do not apply this same benefit to all American workers in the private sector, we should not grant it to Federal workers. Americans are tired of us giving special benefits to Federal workers that are not offered in the private sector.

In conclusion, I thank the managers of this bill, again, for allowing me to offer these amendments. I am happy to work out other items and debate them individually, if that is necessary.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I understand we just have a few minutes. A few minutes ago, we thought we would be voting on one of the DeMint amendments, and we are still not sure if that is going to happen.

Mr. President, I will take a couple of moments to reexplain the amendment just in case we get to vote on it tonight or early in the morning.

We just heard Senator Allard talk about the need for State flexibility because of the different costs of living, the different economies, the different situations. In the United States today, we have 29 States that have set a minimum wage higher than the Federal minimum wage. That action really reflects the cost of living in different parts of our country.

Does the Senator yield?

We will talk until the next vote, how about that? What time is the next vote?

Two minutes.

Senator Allard has made a good case for the need for States to have flexibility to adapt the minimum wage to their particular State's cost of living. That is one option.

The amendment I have is quite different. It recognizes that we do have very different costs of living, such as in Massachusetts, Boston is 35 percent above the national average cost of living. If you go south to Mobile, AL, it is 11 percent less than the average cost of living. So the current $5.15 minimum wage which is in Alabama actually has more buying power than the $7.50 minimum wage which is now in effect in Massachusetts.

We are proposing that we be fair with this Federal minimum wage increase. The Senator from Massachusetts knows that, despite his passion for low-income workers and raising the minimum wage for workers, workers in 29 States will not get the full benefit. In fact, workers in Massachusetts will get no raise at all. Workers in Washington, Oregon, or California will get no raise, as will the minimum wage workers in Vermont or Connecticut or Rhode Island. All the States here in blue, the highest cost of living States in our country, will get either no increase or less than a 10-cent increase from this $2.10. The States in the white get some increase but, again, not the full increase. Really, most of the States that would get the full $2.10 increase are low-cost-of-living States around our country, again where the cost of living is more in tune with the $5.15 minimum wage.

Frankly, I would like every worker to be making a lot more money, and there are a lot of other things we can do to make that happen. But if we are going to have a Federal minimum wage, let it reflect the cost of living in every State. Let's give every minimum wage worker in this country a raise when we pass this bill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I want to speak in favor of the Durbin amendment No. 44, which is a slightly modified version of my amendment No. 11 that was endorsed by a majority of Senators last Thursday on a 51-to-46 vote.

I ask unanimous consent that my name be added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 44 offered by the Senator from Illinois.

The Durbin amendment is a product of a bipartisan agreement that I reached last week with the majority leader and the Senator from Illinois. The Durbin amendment contains bipartisan language that would require disclosure for all earmarks, including those directed toward Federal projects and those contained in report language. It also strengthens Internet disclosure so that bills shall not be in order unless their reports include a list of earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits, which are posted on the Internet in a searchable format at least 48 hours before consideration.

In addition, it is our understanding that if a spending bill is reported long before its consideration, the list of earmarks will accompany any committee reports for those bills.

The Durbin amendment slightly modifies the definition of a limited tax benefit to ``any revenue provision'' that provides a benefit to ``a particular beneficiary or limited group of beneficiaries.'' This is similar to the definition used in the legislative line-item veto amendment.

I thank the majority leader and the Senator from Illinois for working with me on this important issue. The purpose of the bill before us is to address the culture of corruption in Washington, and it cannot be a serious proposal unless we are completely transparent with the way we spend American tax dollars.

This bipartisan agreement helps achieve that goal. We will be voting today at 5:30 on the Durbin amendment and I encourage all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to support it. Following that vote, we will vote on my amendment as modified by the Durbin amendment. I encourage my colleagues to support it as well.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 70

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

Mr. President, I would like to make a few comments about a couple of amendments on which we are getting ready to vote. One is mine, and one is an amendment to my amendment by Senator Durbin.

Yes. I ask unanimous consent to speak. I apologize, Mr. President. I am getting ahead of myself today. I thank the Parliamentarian. Am I free to speak at this point?

Mr. President, we are getting ready to vote on a couple of amendments. One is Senator Durbin's which I believe improves the underlying amendment, which is my amendment No. 11. I thank Senator Reid and Senator Durbin and a number of Members on the Democratic side who worked with us to perfect this amendment in a way that will be good for the country and will be much more transparent in how we do business. I have asked to be a cosponsor of Senator Durbin's amendment, which will come up before mine. I again encourage all my Republican and Democratic colleagues to support Senator Durbin's amendment, as well as the underlying amendment.

I remind my colleagues, I think these two amendments focus on the most egregious problem with this whole idea of ethics and lobbying reform. It makes all of the earmarks, all of the designated spending-- some folks refer to this as specific favors for interest groups-- everything we do to designate funds in a particular direction, it just requires us to disclose these, to disclose them in a way that the American people can see, can find them on the Internet, and can determine for themselves if this is a good way to spend their taxpayers' dollars. We believe, as I think the American people do, that if it is clear what we are doing while we are doing it and who is doing it, it will, first of all, limit unnecessary earmarks and unnecessary Federal spending, but it will also create a lot more accountability for this designated spending which we do attach to bills.

I thank my Democratic colleagues for working constructively with us. We made progress and created a better bill. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for both of the amendments tonight.

I yield the floor.

limited tax benefits

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am not quite prepared to make all of my remarks about the amendments, but I did happen to be in the Chamber, and Senator Durbin was kind enough to open the discussion on two of my amendments, which I greatly appreciate. I am somewhat disappointed, however, that my colleague is not completely informed about these amendments.

I will start with the amendment that attempts to more accurately define what an earmark is. My colleague went to great pains to continuously describe this as the DeMint amendment, the DeMint language. Unfortunately, I am not sure if he knows, but this is the language which the new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has put in this lobbying reform bill in order to make it more honest and transparent. I believe she has a very thoughtful approach. She campaigned on this, along with a number of Democrats and Republicans. We do need to disclose and make transparent every favor we do for an entity.

I am beginning to get disappointed in this process because I did believe in a bipartisan way that we were going to come together to try to do things to show the American people that we were going to spend their money in an honest way and that was not wasteful. But as we look back on some of the scandals, the first one that comes to mind, obviously, is the Abramoff scandal--using Indian money to try to buy influence on Capitol Hill.

Yesterday there was a thoughtful amendment by Senator Vitter that would have attempted to get the Indian tribes to play by the same rules everyone else in America plays by, that they have regulated contributions that are disclosed. The reason we had the scandal with Abramoff is the Indian tribes are not regulated by the Federal Election Commission. They can give unlimited amounts, unaccounted for, and it corrupted our process. The amendment yesterday very simply said: Let's just have everyone follow the same rules. Yet that was voted down, primarily by my Democratic colleagues. I hope they will rethink that. We would like to bring that amendment back to the floor and make sure there is adequate discussion because it is hard for me to believe that anyone who wants to clear up the corruption in Washington would overlook that a big part of the corruption was caused by unlimited donations by lobbyists from Indian tribes.

Now we have another problem. We are talking about earmark reform. We use language here many times in the Chamber that I don't think Americans understand. When we talk about earmarks, we are talking usually about lobbyists who come and appeal on behalf of some organization or business

or whatever for us to do them a favor with taxpayer money. It may be a municipality that wants a bridge. It may be a defense contractor that wants a big contract from us. And if we put that money in an appropriations bill designated just for them, it is an earmark. That is a Federal earmark. Nancy Pelosi had the wisdom to see that a lot of the problems we have had came from lobbyists asking for favors that went to Federal, as well as State, and other types of earmarks.

What other corruption comes to mind as we think about last year? Duke Cunningham. The corruption there was a Federal earmark. The underlying bill we are discussing today would not have included that. It would not have been disclosed. Senator Durbin said that should not be disclosed, when most of the problems that we have come from that particular type of earmark.

I think if you look at this in the big picture, we are talking about trying to let the American people know how we are spending their money. When we designate their money as a favor to different people and entities across this country, we want to let them know what we are doing so we can defend it, so they can see it. But what is a dirty little secret in the Senate and in the House is that while we are making this big media display of reforming earmarks and lobbying, 95 out of every 100 earmarks are in the report language of bills that come out of conference which are not included in the current discussion of transparency for earmarks.

So the case my dear friend Senator Durbin has made today is that we want to disclose these particular favors for 5 out of every 100 earmarks in this Senate. That is not honest transparency. If we are going to do it, let's look at what the new Speaker of the House has asked us to do. If we are going to go through this process and if we are going to change the laws and try to tell the American people that now you can see what we are doing, let's don't try to pull the wool over their eyes. Speaker Pelosi is right. Many in this Chamber know I don't often agree with Speaker Pelosi, but she is the new Speaker. One of her first and highest priorities was to do this ethics reform bill right. At the top of the list is, if we are going to talk about the transparency to the American people, let's be honest and show them the way we are directing the spending of their money. I agree with her. I am here to defend her language on behalf of the Democratic colleagues on the House side that let's not try to pull the wool over the American people's eyes and tell them we are cleaning up these scandals when what we are doing here would not have affected the Abramoff scandal, the Cunningham scandal, or any of the scandals we have talked about in the culture of corruption in this Congress. Let's at least be honest with the reform we are saying is going to clean up this place. We are not being honest now. Speaker Pelosi has the right idea.

Let me mention one other thing, the other amendment my colleague was nice enough to bring up. It is what we call the automatic continuing resolution. I have been in Congress now for 8 years. This is my ninth year. Every year, we get toward the end of the year and we have not gotten all of our appropriations done; it comes down to the last minute and they are saying we have to vote on this and we have to pass it or we are going to shut down the Government. So we create this crisis. Then we don't know what is in all of the bills. They are just coming out of conference and we have to vote on them, and most of us go home in December and find out about all of the earmarks and the favors that were put in the bills. We find it out later because we are not even given time to read them. We create this crisis and force people to vote on bills when they don't know what is in them. We are forced to vote on things that should not be in them so we won't close down the Government.

We need to stop playing this game at the end of the year that forces us to accept what lobbyists and Members and staff have worked out that we don't even know about. If we are serious about decreasing the power of lobbyists in this place, we need to take the pressure off passing bad bills at the end of every year. This is a very simple idea.

You will notice, despite what has been said, we passed a continuing resolution at the end of last year and didn't pass our appropriation bills. Of course, as you look around, you see the country is still operating just fine. The thing we don't have is 10,000 new earmarks. I would make the case we need a system that if we are not able to have ample debate and discussion about appropriations, we don't have all this fanfare about closing down the Government every year and scaring our senior citizens and our veterans that something is not going to come that they need. Let's have a simple provision that if we cannot get our work done and agree on what needs to be done and what should be in these bills, then we will have a continuing resolution until we can work it out. We will fund everything at last year's level, so that there is no crisis, there is just responsibility.

That is what is missing here. When we put things into crisis mode, we cannot see what needs to be seen, or tell America what needs to be told about these bills, and we pass bills and find out later we have done things that embarrass us and diminish the future of our country.

This is a simple amendment. I am very disappointed in my Democratic colleague who wants to help us, I believe sincerely, clean up the way lobbying works in this place by making things more transparent to the American people, but these two amendments--one will disclose all earmarks and the other will take the crisis out of every year and allow us to pass responsible legislation.

Mr. President, I will have more to say later and I am sure other Members will also before these amendments come to a vote. Unfortunately, I have been told that my colleagues don't even want these bills to come to a vote. They want to try to table them so we will limit the debate.

I will reserve the rest of my time and yield the floor right now, and we will discuss more about these amendments after lunch.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, am I correct in my understanding that I control the time between now and 2 o'clock.

I thank the Chair.

I am here to discuss two amendments that will be voted on at 2 o'clock. I see my colleague, Senator Coburn, is here to speak on one of them. I will make a few comments and then yield some time to him.

This whole debate about lobbying and ethics reform is very important to this Congress. We know from the last election that the American people are concerned about how we spend our money, about corruption. The closer we looked at it as Congressmen and Senators, the clearer it became that the practice we have of earmarking, which is providing some favor with tax dollars to some group or entity around the country, has begun to corrupt the process. The scandals we saw on the House side were mostly related specifically to a lobbyist basically buying an earmark, a favor we consider scandalous in the Senate.

The new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, in a thoughtful proposal, H.R. 6, provided a clear definition of what these earmarks or favors are, so that when we begin to develop reform of the earmarking process, we can target those things that are the problem.

That is what my amendment is about. The bill that is on the floor of the Senate now defines earmarks in a way that only includes about 5 percent of the total earmarks. It would not have included the type of earmarks that got Congressman Duke Cunningham in trouble. It would not have included the Abramoff type of scandal either. We often disagree, but as we start this new session, there is a new climate of bipartisanship, the need to cooperate, Republicans and Democrats. But it is also important, between the House and the Senate, that when we think the House gets it right, whether it is Republican or Democrat, we should take an honest look at it. In this case, Speaker Pelosi has it right on the earmarks.

I would like to speak more about it. Before I do, I will yield whatever time Senator Coburn would like.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his persistence and hard work on a very commonsense issue. Many times in this Chamber, and in the House, we assume on our side that if the Democrats have an amendment, there is always some trick in it and they are trying to get us to take a vote and make us look bad; we don't trust each other. I wish to make an appeal that on this one amendment--this amendment No. 11 we have talked about--there is no trick. It is the exact language Speaker Nancy Pelosi put in their ethics bill, because everybody there--many Republicans and Democrats--agree that if we are going to at least have a pretense of changing the culture here, we need to be fully transparent and open and honest in what we are talking about.

As Senator Coburn said, many earmarks are good projects; they help people and organizations. The problem we have is that in order to get a few of those things that are good and necessary, we have to vote for thousands and thousands of earmarks that are not Federal priorities, and many of them, once disclosed, become an embarrassment to us. I think it has made the American people jaded about what we do here.

This is an opportunity to at least work together on one thing. The problem we had--and Senator Coburn mentioned this--in 2006 is that in the appropriations bills there were 12,852 earmarks. I am sure there are many that could be defended. But the biggest problem we have as a Congress is that behind these thousands of earmarks are thousands and thousands of lobbyists who have been paid to come up here and influence us in a way that would include a favor for their client in the bill. Again, many of these are legitimate. But what we have done to ourselves and our country--it drives me crazy to see a little town in South Carolina that is paying a lobbyist firm over $100,000 a year because that firm has promised them they can come up here and get a Federal earmark for a million dollars or more. What a great return--pay $100,000 and get a million dollar earmark. We see little colleges, associations, and businesses hiring lobbyists, hoping to get a particular earmark. So we have thousands of lobbyists in this town who are here to try to influence us to do a favor on behalf of their client. Much of this is legitimate, but our oath and our reason for being here is for the good of this country. We cannot do business with thousands and thousands of special interests who are here to influence us, and we have a system that actually makes it difficult for us not to go along with that, as Senator Coburn has pointed out.

This amendment is very simple. It doesn't create any kind of rigorous process for disclosure, which has been claimed here today by the other side. It simply says if we are going to create a transparent, well- disclosed process of the earmarks we are putting into a bill, all of them are disclosed, not just some small definition that includes only 5 out of 100 earmarks. We have already said there were only 534 out of about 12,800, so we cannot pretend to be putting a stop to the corrupting process of money here in the Congress if we try to convince the American people that somehow we have done some good. If we look at the corruption we are trying to get rid of, Duke Cunningham on the House side was influenced by lobbyists to get a Federal earmark from the Department of Defense. That would not have been included in the bill that is here on the Senate side. But it would be in Nancy Pelosi's language. We could stop the corruption before it ever happens.

We have a real opportunity to do something that is significant. If we are going to spend weeks and weeks--which ultimately we are--with ethics and lobbying reform and transparency, if we get to the end of this and we have something that does not appear remotely honest to the American people, I think we will all be ashamed of the process we went through. Unfortunately, yesterday, we voted down an amendment that would bring another bit of honesty to this organization. We had the big scandal we talked about in the last election, Abramoff. The problem there is that Indian tribes in America are allowed to give unregulated amounts of unaccountable money to Congress to buy influence, and that is what happened in that case.

We had an amendment yesterday that would have asked the Indian tribes to play by the same rules every other group in America plays by, but we voted it down. That means that in the future Indian tribes, with all their casinos and money, are going to continue to flood Congress with money and the American people don't know what it is buying, where it is coming from. It is senseless to go through an ethics reform bill and overlook something that obvious.

Today, we have something equally as obvious. We have a proposal to identify and make transparent the earmarks that come through the appropriation bills. It is something the House has agreed on, and Speaker Pelosi has made it a top priority. This is not a partisan trick. This is a commonsense disclosure provision that will be good for this body.

Yes.

I yield to Senator Durbin so he may answer the question.

I thank the Senator. Reclaiming my time, I would be happy to work with the Senator on that. We include earmarks related to special tax treatment and special tariffs. I know there was discussion in the House. Again, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats decided on this definition because they believe strongly in it. I do, too. We are certainly willing to work on that.

The strategy today to table this amendment that would move from 5 percent of earmarks to 100 percent does not seem to be an open and honest part of the process to get at a better ethics reform bill.

Yes.

I yield.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for being here.

In the interest of continued debate, I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, reclaiming my time. I am running short. I believe I have until 2 o'clock.

I will yield in a moment. I appreciate the Senator from Illinois staying with us because I want to mention another amendment and give him some comment. I do appreciate the opportunity for some debate.

I would like to summarize to make a key point. Nothing in this amendment would limit, in any way, our ability to earmark bills. We could have 12,000 next year, if we want. The main point of this is that if we are going to have 12,800 some-odd earmarks we have a way to show the American people what these earmarks are, where they are going, and who sponsored them so they can see what we are doing.

We know what that would do. It would, first of all, reduce a lot of the earmarks if they were disclosed. It would allow Members to know when we have earmarks. Many times, the 95 percent or so we are voting on are in a conference report, and we haven't seen them. We are not eliminating earmarks, we are disclosing them and making them transparent, which is key to any lobby reform.

Let me mention another amendment we talked about earlier today. It is referred to as an automatic continuing resolution, and I am sure a lot of folks don't know exactly what we are talking about. Every year we go through a process of appropriating money for different Government programs. We have 11 or so different bills, if that is the way we divide it this year. We have to have those done, or supposed to, by the end of our fiscal year in order for the Government to continue operations. But 24 out of the last 25 years, the Congress, under the control of both Republicans and Democrats, has not finished all its appropriations bills before the end of our fiscal year, and we have had to have a continuing resolution to avoid the Government shutting down. We have done that every year I have been in the House and in the Senate.

What that does at the end of every year is create a crisis. We have to vote for the continuing resolution, we have to get it done, and that is when many of these earmarks are slipped in. That is when many times we are told that if we want to keep the Government operating, we need to vote for this resolution, even though we don't know what is in it yet.

Every year we frighten senior citizens, veterans, and other people depending on Government programs that somehow their service is going to be interrupted because the Government is going to close down.

It is completely unnecessary to do this every year. We know, in the last years, it is not unusual for us to pass a continuing resolution in the middle of the night and put it on a jet airplane and fly it to the other part of the world so the President can sign it at the last minute so we won't send all our Federal employees home and cut services around the country. It is a game we play every year that encourages bad legislation, it encourages unnecessary earmarks, and it encourages us to operate with blinders on because we don't know what we are voting on. This is not a partisan trick because the Democrats could be in charge, we could have a Democratic President.

This amendment is, again, very simple. If we have not passed the appropriations bills at the end of the fiscal year that applies to certain agencies of Government, those agencies continue to operate at the budget they had the previous year. At whatever time during the year we pass the appropriations bill that funds them, then that circumvents the automatic CR, and we continue with the new level funding. This would take the crisis out of the end of every year.

What is effective blackmail, where you vote for this or the Government is going to close down, we don't need to do that. What we need is an orderly, transparent process that the American people can see and that we as Members can see.

This amendment would continue the operation of Government until we are able to get our business done, and then we would continue business as usual.

Again, it is simple, commonsense legislation that does not cost the country anything. In fact, I think it will save us millions and millions of dollars when we do our business correctly.

If the Senator from Illinois has some response, I will be glad to yield.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's transparency. I have been around long enough to know exactly what is going to happen. If we have a transparent provision for 5 percent of earmarks, but if we do them another way, such as in report language, they are not transparent, and this is going to encourage more perversion of the way we do business because what is going to happen is we are going to push more and more of our earmarks into report language in conference bills that we don't know is there and the American people don't know is there.

We know how this place operates, and we are going to choose the path of least resistance. If we don't have to disclose it if it is in report language, but we do if it is in the bill, then we are actually going to do harm to the process.

I will tell the Senator from Illinois this: He mentioned a Senate rule. We are not talking about a Senate rule. We are talking about a statute of law we are passing that will go to conference with the House. The Senator, obviously, as a member of the majority, will have ample opportunity to change this provision, but I think it would be a good signal to America, to the House, to our colleagues in the Senate that if we adopt this amendment today, and if there are ways to improve it in conference, I am certainly open to that. But to table this amendment and to say we don't even want to discuss or vote on an amendment that creates more disclosure and honesty in the process, I think does harm to what we are trying to do today.

Yes.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator. The Senator from Illinois is right. We don't authorize, but the Senator also mentioned the word ``recommending.'' Ninety-five percent of the earmarks produced by this Congress are in report language and conference reports that actually do not have the force of law, that are recommended but have been carried out by the executive branch for years just for fear of retribution from the Congress because we talked to the President about this.

There is no reason why these should not be disclosed. There is no reason the American people should not know they are there. We are not limiting the number that can be there. We are not suggesting we change the authorizing process.

I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I will give the Senator from Illinois the last word.

Which amendment is this?

Mr. President, this is what we call the Nancy Pelosi amendment; it is in her honor. I appreciate the opportunity for debate. I appreciate my colleague from Illinois joining us in some give and take. I think there is a temptation to make this more than it is. It is not a new set of regulations. It is applying the same transparency we are trying to apply to 5 percent of earmarks to all the earmarks so that we will not only be honest as a body, but we will appear honest to the American people.

I think all of us know if we walk out of here and the media shines a light on what we have done, and if it becomes obvious that most of the earmarks we pass are completely overlooked by our ethics and lobbying reform bill, then it will be seen for the sham that it really is. We are investing too much of our time and too much of the interests of our country in this idea of ethics reform----

I thank the President for his patience.

Madam President, it is my understanding I am speaking in defense of amendment No. 13, which we call the automatic continuing resolution.

I wish to appeal to my fellow Senators to remember that over the last 25 years, 24 of those years we were not able to complete the appropriations process before the end of the fiscal year. As you know, every year we have a crisis situation here. We are all familiar with the end of the year crisis where we have to vote for a bill or we are going to close down the Government or parts of the Government. We sign a continuing resolution and that night, many times, we are flying to other parts of the world so the President can sign it.

This amendment is a very simple idea. If we are not able to finish an appropriations bill before the end of the fiscal year, it simply continues the Government under last year's funding. That way, we do not have to have a crisis and vote on bills we have not read and that we are embarrassed about 3 weeks later, and we do not have to threaten Federal employees or senior citizens that their services will be cut off.

Please support this amendment. It is simple common sense to continue the operations of Government until we can complete our business.

We get lots of scores around this place. This is not spending. Pursuant to section 904(c)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the point of order, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, if I could have a brief moment to address the majority.

We had a good debate on my first amendment, amendment No. 11, to expand the definitions of earmarks in a way that the American people could understand and see. I appreciate the Senator from Illinois participating in a good and open debate. The motion was to table that amendment, but, with bipartisan support, we defeated the motion to table. And as a customary way of courtesy, I think, in the Senate, we normally accept a voice vote for amendments that are not tabled.

I ask unanimous consent that amendment be accepted.

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

Madam President, I would just like a few minutes to address the Senate. I have some deep concerns about some things that are going on.

I have been really encouraged since the new majority took over. We have had some great bipartisan meetings, and we have talked about trying to create a new spirit of cooperation here in the Senate and to work together. I think a lot of us have been trying to do that, and it has been going reasonably well.

Today I had the opportunity to offer an amendment, an amendment that will contribute to the transparency of what we call earmarks or the favors that sometimes lobbyists and Members work out where we put money in bills for specific things. We just wanted to make that transparent and to include all earmarks, not just a few.

We had a good debate. I have to admit it was the most fun I have had since I have been in the Senate. I was given 45 minutes of time before the vote at 2 o'clock, and Senator Coburn came down to speak on my behalf. Senator Durbin asked me to yield, and I gave him all the time he wanted. I even yielded the last 2 minutes and gave him the last word. We had a good debate about it.

The majority had decided to try to table that amendment so we wouldn't have a vote, so the motion was to table the DeMint amendment. We had a good vote. It is always exciting to see how votes come in. When they held up the final sheet, 51 had voted not to table the amendment and 46 had voted to table it. It wasn't a partisan vote. It wasn't party line at all. That is what was kind of unusual.

Again, I think the spirit of what we have been trying to do is not just to

look at the party but to look at the issue. I think a lot of folks decided that if we are going to have disclosure of earmarks, let's have disclosure of all of them, and this one happens to take it from 5 percent to 100.

But I would like to thank some of my colleagues, my Democratic colleagues who thought about this amendment, who listened to the debate, including Senator Landrieu and Senator Kerry, Senator Cantwell, Senator Webb, Senator Tester, Senator Harkin, Senator Feingold, Senator Obama, and my good friend Senator Lieberman, who took the time to listen to the debate and decided that this shouldn't be tabled, that we should have a vote on it. Normally what happens in the Chamber--in fact, I have never seen it done any other way--is if a motion to table fails, then the majority would accept the amendment as a voice vote because the will of the Senate has spoken and a majority have expressed their support of that amendment.

But something happened on the way to civility and camaraderie here today. Instead of the normal procedure of the majority conceding that Republicans and Democrats wanted to pass this amendment, they did not agree when I asked that the amendment be accepted. They objected. Now I am told that after a lot of backroom work, they want to bring the amendment back to the floor, and apparently they have convinced some of my colleagues to change their votes. I have to say, I know when I was in the House, I saw my party guilty of that, after a Medicare vote being open 3 hours and arm-twisting and all kinds of carrying on.

I think we all decided after the last election that maybe the American people didn't want us to do business that way. I think the will of the Senate has spoken on this amendment, and I think the issue is bigger than on my particular amendment; it is, if we are going to have ethics reform, let's be ethical about the process of voting on this reform. We had a good, open, and honest debate.

The amendment is simple and clear. It is actually Nancy Pelosi's amendment from the House side which has been vetted and voted on and discussed. I am aware there is some misinformation now going on about the amendment, but I would just encourage my colleagues--I would encourage my Republican colleagues because some of them voted against this--even if they don't like the amendment, let's support the idea of just following normal courtesies here in the Senate.

I have often heard, since I came from the House side, that the Senate is a much different place, that we are civil, we respect each other's rights. I am afraid a lot of that is slipping away here. I would just like to make an appeal today that my colleagues accept this amendment. The will of the Senate has spoken. It obviously can be worked on and improved in conference. The majority will control the conference. I think it will speak well for the Senate that we are willing to shine the light of day onto all of our earmarks so the American people can see it.

So, Madam President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

I object.

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

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I see that the majority leader was discussing this bill. While I have a number of Members sitting here, if I could respond to the majority leader. I very much appreciate his consideration. I appreciate what happened today. We had a good debate. Some of you listened. We had a good vote on the motion to table, and we won that vote.

As any of you know, if you have ever been through the process of trying to get an amendment up and trying to develop the support you need, to win a vote like that, it is a good day in the Senate.

I am afraid it is starting to feel a little like the House. I remember when I was in the House when the Medicare bill would not pass, the Medicare Part D, and we kept the vote open for 3 hours twisting arms, changing minds until the Republicans got what they wanted. I had hoped the Senate would be different. Our rules are different. We can't hold the vote open that long. But by using tabling and then bringing it back up, as we are doing now, we are doing exactly the same thing.

I will take exception to the House and Nancy Pelosi not taking the time to work this through. I think anyone who looks at the language will see that the Senate version only deals with 5 out of 100, 5 percent of the earmarks that we pass. We have a chart from last year, when there were 12,800 earmarks. Under the Senate provision, only about 500 would be included. The public is not going to believe that we are disclosing earmarks. So if we are going to disclose earmarks, let's disclose them all.

The House did have the good sense, after seeing what that did to the ethical appearance of the House, when the Medicare bill was held open for 3 hours until the majority got what it wanted, to have in their ethics rules that you cannot--I will just read the rule. It says: Clause 2(a) of rule 20 is amended by inserting after the second sentence the following sentence: A record vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote.

They know what that does to the appearance and the culture of the House. We didn't hold the vote open, but it has been less time than was held open for that Medicare vote, and we are back here revoting something after some arms have been twisted. If that is the culture we want in the Senate, I think we should stop saying that we have a higher culture than the House.

I believe Speaker Pelosi is sincere in wanting to disclose what we are doing so the American people will know how we are spending their money. This is not a careless amendment. It is something that has been done with a lot of thought. We won this vote fair and square. It is going to happen to all of you. If this is how you want fellow Members treated, if any amendment we offer can be tabled and if you win your amendment, the majority can go off and twist some arms and change some minds and we can have another vote, if that is how we are going to do business, then I think it is time the American people know it, and we might as well set this whole ethics bill aside because it is all pretense anyway.

I appreciate the opportunity to have a few people sitting here listening, but I can assure you that this amendment will improve this bill, and it will improve the perception of this Senate if we pass it.

I thank the Chair.

I yield.

I thank the Senator. I welcome any input into this amendment. We have adopted the exact language that Speaker Pelosi insisted on just for the definition of ``earmarks.'' The most important part to remember is, in the Senate bill, no matter what we do with transparency, it only applies to 5 percent of the earmarks. It doesn't apply to Federal earmarks, the type of earmarks that got Duke Cunningham in trouble. Those need to be disclosed. It doesn't apply to report language in conference reports which include 95 percent of all the earmarks we do. So there is no way for the media or the public to look in on what we do, regardless of how we try to do transparency on that 5 percent and say that we are doing anything to make this place more transparent. That is the main difference.

We can get into the tax provisions. We used the definition the House did, but we do include tax-based earmarks or tariff-based earmarks. Again, in conference, we have the opportunity to work together and change it. But if we defeat this bill with misinformation right now and it doesn't go to conference as part of the mix, the public is going to know from day one that this idea of being open and transparent is just a scam. If we are going to do it, let's do it to all the earmarks, and then let's discuss what the best way is to do it.

The Senator has it right. We are not saying whether earmarks are good or bad. We are not saying that we have some and not others. All we are saying is that earmarks are designated spending. Whether it be Federal, non-Federal, or report language, it should be disclosed in the same way. This chart shows the number of earmarks in the 2006 budget of 12,852. The Senate bill would apply to only 534 of those. So if we are going to have disclosure of earmarks--and that is up to the Senate to decide--if we are going to say we are going to have disclosure, I think we need to include the 12,318 that we don't want to tell people about. People will not believe we are transparent. I think that is what both sides of the aisle want. That is the only thing this amendment does; it doesn't limit earmarks. It doesn't change anything except it defines them in a way that is open and honest.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.