Floor Statements

Will the Senator withhold his request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside and I be permitted to offer four amendments.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Connecticut and Utah for working with me to get the time to offer these amendments. When similar legislation was considered last year, I voted against it because I believed it did not do enough in the way of earmark reform. I believe the same is true for the substitute that is before us today, and I am offering these amendments to strengthen the bill and try to get it to the point where I can support it.

My first amendment would enhance the disclosure requirements for congressional earmarks, for limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits to match those proposed in the other body by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The earmark definition in the substitute is woefully inadequate. It exempts earmarks for Federal entities as well as earmarks in report language.

According to the Congressional Research Service, more than 95 percent of all earmarks in fiscal year 2006 were found in report language, not in the bill text. In effect, disclosure requirements in the substitute could conceivably apply to only 5 out of every 100 earmarks.

The definition of a targeted tax benefit in the substitute also falls short, as it never explicitly defines what constitutes a limited group of taxpayers. Speaker Pelosi's language, however, explicitly defines a limited tax benefit as one that is targeted to 10 or fewer beneficiaries.

I do not always agree with Speaker Pelosi, but on this issue we are in full agreement. The earmark definition agreed to in the House is by far the most comprehensive definition that is currently being debated, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

My second amendment would clarify that earmarks that were not in either the House or Senate version of the bill are out of scope when they are added in a conference report. As my colleagues know, a lot of earmarks find their way into conference reports where they cannot be voted on. This circumvents the legislative process, and it fosters abuse of taxpayer dollars. I am pleased that the substitute partly addresses this problem by creating a new 60-vote point of order against matters that are out of scope. This was designed to allow Members to object to out-of-scope earmarks and have them removed from the conference report, but the Senate Parliamentarian does not believe this provision is enforceable against earmarks specifically.

My amendment would clarify that out-of-scope earmarks are subject to this new point of order in the Senate bill as well as rule XXVIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, which prohibits adding out-of-scope matters in conference. I believe this is the true intent of the substitute, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support it.

My third amendment would prevent the Government from shutting down when regular appropriations bills are not enacted. It would do so by automatically triggering a continuing resolution that funds agencies at current levels for up to a year. The amendment would begin automatic funding on the first day of a lapse in appropriations, and it would end on the day the regular appropriations bill becomes law or the last day of the fiscal year, whichever comes first. This would eliminate the must-pass nature associated with regular appropriations bills which often pressure lawmakers into accepting spending bills with objectionable earmarks.

I understand that the Democratic leader intends to get all of the appropriations bills done before the end of the fiscal year, but there are always unforeseeable events that must be dealt with, and there is always a chance that we will be faced with having to pass a bad bill or allowing parts of the Government to shut down. I certainly do not support Government shutdowns, and I know my colleagues do not either. My amendment would create a safety net that would avoid the crisis situations that often pressure lawmakers into supporting spending bills that they would not otherwise support. This is a commonsense proposal, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

My fourth amendment would prevent labor unions from using a member's dues to lobby Congress without the prior separate and written consent of that member. Union dues, like taxes, are compulsory for union members. We all believe Congress must be transparent and accountable in the way it spends tax dollars, and we should all support making unions transparent and accountable in the way they spend members' dues. Federal tax dollars cannot be used for lobbying but compulsory union dues can be used for lobbying. This is a real problem because it forces union workers to pay for lobbying with which they may not agree. If someone is a member of a trade association and they disagree with the actions of that group, they can always stop paying their dues. This freedom is not afforded to union workers.

I tried on several occasions last year to pass legislation that would bar criminals convicted of serious felonies from gaining secure access to our ports. This proposal is essential to protecting our Nation from future terrorist attacks, and it is overwhelmingly supported by Americans. But the measure was killed by several unions that lobbied against it, and they killed it with dues that they forced union workers to pay without their consent.

My amendment simply requires consent from union members before his or her dues may be used to lobby Congress. My amendment has nothing to do with political contributions. That is a debate for another day. But as long as unions force workers to pay dues as a condition of employment, they should get consent from their members before they use those dues to lobby Congress. My amendment would ensure that voluntary contributions will be the only contributions that can go toward lobbying Congress.

I thank the managers again for working with me to get these amendments called up so our colleagues can begin reviewing them. I would be pleased to work with the managers in scheduling additional time to debate and vote on these amendments.

I yield and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Gregg. This amendment would establish a legislative line- item veto.

The American people sent a clear message in November that they were tired of a broken system that wasted their hard-earned money on pork projects. They want us to make the tough decisions and end the ``favor factory,'' where taxpayer money goes to the highest bidding lobbyist.

The legislative line-item veto strikes at the heart of this ethics dilemma. It gives the President the ability to strip special spending and earmarks out of a bill and send them back to Congress for an up-or- down vote. By doing this, it allows the administration to work with Congress in a constructive way to reduce wasteful spending, to reduce the budget deficit and ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.

The Senator's amendment permits the President to submit to Congress proposals to cancel specific appropriations, as well as items of direct spending and targeted tax benefits. Both the House and the Senate would have to vote on each Presidential proposal, without amendment, within a short timeframe. But the proposed rescission could not take effect unless approved by Congress.

Mr. President, giving the President enhanced authority to seek rescission of new spending will help ensure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted on earmarks that are not national priorities. Since the Supreme Court struck down the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996, the number of earmarks has significantly increased. The line-item veto has a long history of bipartisan support. At least 11 Presidents from both parties have called for the authority to address individual spending items wrapped into larger bills. These Presidents include Grant, Hayes, Arthur, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. Additionally, the Governors of 43 out of 53 States already have this authority.

Mr. President, the Senator's proposal is also consistent with the Constitution. In its 1998 ruling striking down the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996, the Supreme Court concluded that the act ``gave the President the unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statutes.'' However, this amendment does not raise those constitutional issues because the President's rescissions must be enacted by both Houses of Congress and signed into law.

This amendment has been dramatically curtailed so that even supporters of congressional earmarks can support it because it limits the President to four rescission packages a year. The fast-track mechanism is similar to what we use for BRAC, as well as free trade agreements. Rather than forcing Americans to accept a foot-tall omnibus spending bill with thousands of earmarks, this amendment will give the President a second look at waste so we can all protect American taxpayers.

This is an important amendment. We know that earmarks have gotten way out of control and must be reduced. Without this commonsense provision, this bill cannot be serious about addressing earmarks, as well as the corruption that is associated with them.

The Senator's amendment is very sound, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 664, S. 4047. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to speak a moment on the bill, if I may.

The Maritime Transportation Security Act requires the Transportation Security Agency to develop a biometric security card for port workers that would be used to limit access to sensitive areas within a seaport. To satisfy this law, TSA is developing a transportation worker identification credential--we call it TWIC--card. The law requires that the Secretary issue this card to an individual requesting it, unless he determines that the individual poses a terrorism security risk or if they have been convicted of treason, terrorism, sedition, or espionage.

To fulfill this requirement of the Maritime Transportation Security Act, the Department of Homeland Security has drafted regulations that bar certain criminals from receiving these transportation worker identification credentials. Specifically, the Department of Homeland Security proposed regulations that would 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, murder, violations of the RICO Act where one of the above crimes is a predicate act, and conspiracy to commit any of these crimes.

It would also bar recent felons, those convicted within the last 7 years, or incarcerated in the last 5 years, from working in secure areas of U.S. ports, if they have been convicted of any of these felonies: assault with intent to murder, kidnaping 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 proposed regulations were developed in consultation and coordination with the Departments of Justice and Transportation to identify individuals who have a propensity to engage in unlawful activity, activity that places our ports at risk. Further, these regulations are nearly identical to the regulations that govern those who have access to our airports and who are involved with transporting hazardous material in the United States. These prohibitions are crucial because individuals who engage in the type of unlawful activity described in the proposed regulations have a greater likelihood to engage in activity that puts American ports at risk.

Our law enforcement officials understand this risk. They understand the threat our ports face with traditional crimes, particularly organized crimes, when they work with terrorists. For example, just recently the FBI apprehended a member of the Russian mafia attempting to sell missiles to an FBI agent he thought was acting as a middleman for terrorists. Joseph Billy, 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 that they ``are looking at this very aggressively.''

The threat is not only criminals working directly with terrorists, it is criminals looking the other way when a suspect container comes through the port. Joseph King, a former Customs Service agent and now a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, outlined the concern very clearly:

It's an invitation to smuggling of all kinds. Instead of

bringing in 50 kilograms of heroin, what would stop them from

bringing in five kilograms of plutonium?

A criminal in one of our ports may think he is just helping his buddies smuggle in drugs, but inadvertently he may be helping to smuggle a weapon of mass destruction into the United States.

Earlier this year I offered an amendment to address this threat and ensure that serious felons are kept out of our ports. My amendment would have codified in statute the proposed regulations. The amendment passed unanimously and was included in the Senate-passed version of the Safe Port Act. Unfortunately, behind closed doors in the conference committee this amendment was almost completely gutted. The bill went from having language which prohibited 20 serious felonies that put our ports at risk to a list of just four--felonies so rare as to make the conference report language meaningless. I was extremely dismayed to see this language was stripped. I cannot understand who would oppose language that would ban serious felons from secure areas in American ports.

The ranking member of the Commerce Committee, the Senator from Hawaii, has stated in the Congressional Record that he supported the original DeMint language. I understand the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the Senator from Alaska, also supported the DeMint language. I am at a bit of a loss to conclude who in the Senate opposed this strong homeland security provision. Today the Senator from North Dakota said several of his colleagues did, but we don't know who they are.

While there does not seem to be a Senator who is willing to admit to opposing the provision, the longshoremen's labor union is more than happy to take credit for gutting the provision. Last month the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, in their newsletter, claimed credit for killing the provision. They stated:

Congress will return after the election in a ``lame duck''

session and work through part of November and December. 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 they have, as we have seen today by the objection to this very commonsense measure. The unions are not stopping at just fighting legislation that I am proposing here to keep serious felons out of our port workforce. They are gearing up to mount a legal battle against the proposed regulations as well.

In response to a Wall Street Journal editorial on the subject, the union stated that the proposed regulations were ``double jeopardy'' and ``unconstitutional.'' This is a clear indication that they have a legal challenge in mind. It seems clear now that once the regulations become final, they are going to take the Department of Homeland Security to court and that the proposed regulations are going to be bogged down in lengthy legal battles likely for years.

The consequence will be that as we continue to fight this global war on terror, America's ports will be staffed by serious felons. Some may be tempted to come to the defense of the longshoremen with various so- called concerns: These individuals have paid their debt to society; barring these individuals is going to gut our port workforce; or that the crimes listed are somehow not related to homeland security.

These concerns are 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 don't agree with is that we should give them 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.

Second, I have heard that barring these individuals will empty the ranks of the port workforce. The facts don't bear this out. When the Department of Homeland Security issued nearly 350,000 ID cards for HAZMAT truckdrivers and subjected them to the same background check as I propose putting in the law, only 3,100 were disapproved, less than 1 percent. The workforce in the United States is elastic enough that we can pick up the few thousand longshoremen jobs opening up because the criminals in the port workforce had to be fired.

Finally, some are maintaining these are not serious crimes. I want someone to come down here and tell me which individuals he wants working at his local port--murderers, extortionists, drug dealers, arsonists, document forgers? I want to hear the rationale for stopping this important bill.

The list that the Transportation Security Agency came up with is a list of serious felons who represent a serious threat. It is going to keep these dangerous criminals out of our ports.

The bottom line is this: This bill applies nearly the same protections to seaports that already applies to our airports. It is a regime that has been successful. It will make our ports safer by keeping individuals who have shown a willingness to break the law out of our ports. This is very important. We can spend all the money in our treasury trying to screen cargo, and we have appropriated or approved a whole lot of money to secure our ports. But if we don't screen the people who work at our ports, we cannot expect to have effective port security. It is very unfortunate today that my Democratic colleague has taken this commonsense provision and objected to its consideration.

That is a good thing because I had finished my talk.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Jeff Sinclair, an outstanding Scoutmaster in the State of Wisconsin who passed away October 25, 2006, after a brave battle with cancer.

Jeff's involvement with the Boy Scouts began in 1998, when he became a leader of St. Dominic's Cub Scout Pack 119. Beginning in 2001, he served as Scoutmaster for St. John Vianney's Boy Scout Troop 71, and despite his illness, he continued leading the group until his death.

During his tenure as Scoutmaster, Jeff mentored over 14 percent of his Scouts--including both of his sons--to receive the Eagle Award, the highest rank attainable within the Boy Scouts. This is a stark contrast to the national average of 4 percent of Scouts who receive the award. Jeff's remarkable dedication and leadership to the group has earned him numerous awards and commendations, and I believe he deserves our recognition as well.

Jeff was also accepted as a member of the Boy Scout prestigious Order of the Arrow Honor Society, and his sons followed in his footsteps to attain the distinction. Clearly, not only did Jeff commit himself to serving others, but he inspired those around him to do the same.

Born on March 9, 1960, in Milwaukee to Dr. Eugene and Jean Sinclair, Jeff was an accomplished individual who dedicated himself to helping others. In 1983 he earned a business degree from Marquette University, and for the next several years, he used his skills and expertise to serve the State of Wisconsin through the Department of Revenue.

While Jeff was successful and well regarded in his career and throughout Boy Scouts, his greatest priorities were his family and his faith. A loving husband to wife Kathy and a dedicated father to four children--Matt, Andy, Maggie and Emma--Jeff found great joy in encouraging and supporting their endeavors. In addition to his devoted involvement with his sons' Boy Scout troop, Jeff often assisted with his daughters' soccer teams. He was also very active in his home parish, St. Dominic's.

On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I want to remember Jeff Sinclair for his dedication to his family, church, and community. Undoubtedly, he was a great friend, mentor, and source of joy to countless individuals throughout the years, and he will be missed.

Mr. President, please join me in offering deepest sympathy to his wife, children, and parents. May they find peace and comfort knowing that Jeff's legacy of serving, teaching, and empowering others will last far into the future that this world is a better place because of him.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, let me say that I strongly support this legislation that will maintain and improve the quality of life for our military personnel. I believe that the Senator from Texas, the chairwoman of the subcommittee, has done an excellent job with the bill.

I am also pleased that the Senator from Texas obviously feels there is still time to conference this bill, since the House committee has been saying in the newspapers that there is not enough time. I agree with Senator Hutchison that if we appointed conferees today, with some hard work, this bill could get finished.

I, also, add that the Senator from Texas is committed to keeping this bill clean in conference, which we greatly appreciate. I agree with her that we are at war, but those of us who sent our troops to war should not be back home selling out the country for which they are fighting. It is my understanding that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has refused to make the assurances that we need to keep this bill clean in conference and, therefore, if I consent to letting this bill go to conference, there is a risk that it will return to the Senate as a foot-tall Omnibus appropriations bill, with thousands of earmarks in an unamendable form. Therefore, Madam President, I object.

Madam President, over the last several weeks, I have made it clear that I believe this bill, which is a good bill, needs to stay clean of additional appropriations and earmarks if it is to go to conference. I was asked by the members of the Senate steering committee to protect their interests in keeping these appropriations bills clean.

I informed the leader that the steering committee did not believe it was wise to send a bill to conference without an understanding of what the conference agreement would look like. I have made it clear that all we want is a commitment from the leadership and the Appropriations Committee that this is what will happen. I am not looking for anything extraordinary, a unanimous consent agreement or anything like that. We would be satisfied with a commitment from the chairman of the committee or the leadership that this is what will happen.

At one point, it appeared that we had such an agreement. Leader Frist asked me to put on paper what our specific concerns were to avoid any confusion. I did so.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter from myself, Senator Coburn, and Senator Inhofe be printed in the Record.

Madam President, the leader then told me he wanted to talk with Senator Hutchison and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee before he responded to the letter. Senator Hutchison agreed to the parameters of the letter. The chairman of the committee, however, felt that he could not agree to the request we made in the letter. Unfortunately, that means the Military Construction bill will have to wait until next year.

I take my colleague from Texas at her word when she says she will keep the bill clean. I know she will keep the bill clean. However, when the chairman of the committee says he will not make such a commitment, I must take him at his word as well. I believe the veterans and military projects need to be funded and should not be used as a vehicle for unrelated, wasteful earmarks.

Let me explain how we got to this point. In the November 7 elections, one of the top issues for the voters was wasteful spending. While we have done some things to control taxes and spending, we have not done nearly enough, and the voters are right. Earmarks have gone up in numbers every year and are now at an all-time high. If this does not end, we will never regain the trust of the American people.

When the military construction and veterans spending bill passed the Senate, I strongly supported it. However, it was clear that the intent was to use the bill as a shell to carry the Omnibus appropriations bill and other add-ons. Because the scope of the conference rules has become so relaxed, the conferees, under our rules, would have the ability to put into the bill any projects they please, with no opportunity for us to amend them or even vote, except on final passage of the bill, which would be overwhelmingly approved.

The conference process has rendered the Senate floor consideration of bills almost irrelevant. Nothing we do in this Chamber matters until a bill goes to conference. When a bill goes to conference, conferees may remove provisions that are in both the House and the Senate bills, even if they were approved by both Houses overwhelmingly. Conferees may add provisions that are unrelated to either bill.

Through this process, a clean Military Construction bill could grow into a foot-tall Omnibus appropriations bill, with thousands of earmarks and wasteful spending. The process is flawed, and

it cannot continue this way. When a bill comes back that funds the entire Government and we are forced to vote for the bill or shut down the Government, that bill is going to pass. This means that if I consent to letting this bill go to conference, I am essentially consenting to enact whatever the conferees want to insert in the bill unamended.

We put a lot of trust in our conferees, and all I was asking was for an understanding from the committee that we know, at least in general, where the conference will be headed. I have not been able to get this commitment. I was given no information and no assurances.

Therefore, I am compelled to do what I think is right to protect the taxpayers and to provide integrity and accountability in the spending process.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. If the Senator from Texas would allow me to discuss with her our conversation with Leader Frist. As we talked about earlier today, both the Senator from Texas, myself, and I believe the entire Senate and Congress want this bill to pass.

Senator Hutchison and myself have had the opportunity to meet with Leader Frist to talk about the importance of passing this bill, as well as the importance of not adding additional appropriations and additional earmarks which were not part of the Senate or the House version of this bill or were not part of the President's budget.

If I could ask the Senator, is it her understanding that it is our general agreement and also leadership's that this bill will be kept to the basic bills which have been passed by the House and Senate and that it will return to the Senate floor as a bill that we have discussed with Leader Frist?

Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator for her openness and

tenacity in helping to get the agreements we need to keep this bill clean and focused on the needs of our military. I do not object.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6326, which was received from the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 15, 2006, at 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., to receive testimony on the current situation and U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, November 15, 2006, following the first vote of the day, the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold a business meeting to consider the following agenda: Alex Beehler to be Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 3 p.m. in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask to speak for 7 minutes as in morning business.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. DeMINT related to the introduction of S. 3995 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements On Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation that I am introducing today along with the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama. At this time of year, with much bitter partisanship, I really am pleased to work with Senator Obama for something that we think is important to the country.

The Education Opportunity Act is a bill that would significantly expand college-level opportunities for low-income high school students and teach these students that success in school can mean success in life.

In the fast-paced, technologically advanced global economy of the 21st century, old distinctions between high school and college are becoming obsolete. For our students to succeed in tomorrow's workplace, we must be innovative and allow more choices of study today.

As we look toward reauthorizing No Child Left Behind, I believe it is important to examine what has worked and where students are still falling between the cracks. While we have expanded advanced placement classes, what we call AP classes, through the President's Advanced Placement Incentives Program, I believe we are missing another vital avenue to increase college-level opportunities for low-income students. That is why I am proud to work together with Senator Obama to establish education opportunity grants for high school students.

Our bill is similar to the Federal Pell grant program, which funds need-based aid that does not have to be repaid by the students. These grants could be made available for classes at community colleges or universities that would admit a high school student to enroll in classes. These grant scholarships will help keep our high school students in school by raising their expectations and showing them that they can do college-level work. They could also accumulate college- level credits while still in high school.

Our national dropout rate is at record highs, and it is on the rise. In my own home State of South Carolina, high school students are dropping out at an alarming rate, with half of all students failing to complete high school in 4 years. It is no secret that most of these at- risk students are from low-income families.

Currently, there are only two ways high school students can gain college credit. They either take the AP classes at high school or participate in dual enrollment programs. Some high schools, particularly those with a high percentage of low-income students, are not able to offer advanced placement classes, and students are required to forgo college classes that they might want to take because their families can't afford to foot the bill. The result is that students with great promise who happen to come from disadvantaged families lose interest in a school that does not offer classes tailored to their talents and interests.

Senator Obama and I believe if we expose students to the hundreds of classes available at their local colleges, some of which are listed on the chart behind me, many students who are not excited about high school world history classes will, instead, discover that they are interested in computer science or marketing and can learn a skill that they can see will directly apply to a future job.

Make no mistake, traditional classes in biology, English, and history are important. But if a student drops out because they don't have the flexibility to also pursue more nontraditional avenues, those classes do not do them any good.

Education opportunity grants are a cost-effective way to educate students by utilizing the preexisting infrastructure already available at local colleges. I believe this will show many students that a college degree is attainable and that they will be better prepared to start college or enter the workforce with marketable skills as a high school graduate.

As I mentioned before, I believe it is critical that we do a better job accommodating the needs of all our students and continue to create opportunities for each young person to learn in ways that make sense to them and have direct application to their goals in life.

This legislation is one more valuable option for our educational system to empower students and parents with choices and the ability to follow an educational path that meets their individual needs.

It is time we stopped forcing our kids to fit our educational system and, instead, force our educational system to fit our kids. That is the only way that success in school will mean success in life.

I thank Senator Obama and his great staff for working with my office on this important legislation, and I look forward to working with the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, and the Senator from Massachusetts, Ranking Member Kennedy, to make this legislation a reality.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation that I am introducing today along with the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama. At this time of year, with much bitter partisanship, I really am pleased to work with Senator Obama for something that we think is important to the country.

The Education Opportunity Act is a bill that would significantly expand college-level opportunities for low-income high school students and teach these students that success in school can mean success in life.

In the fast-paced, technologically advanced global economy of the 21st century, old distinctions between high school and college are becoming obsolete. For our students to succeed in tomorrow's workplace, we must be innovative and allow more choices of study today.

As we look toward reauthorizing No Child Left Behind, I believe it is important to examine what has worked and where students are still falling between the cracks. While we have expanded advanced placement classes, what we call AP classes, through the President's Advanced Placement Incentives Program, I believe we are missing another vital avenue to increase college-level opportunities for low-income students. That is why I am proud to work together with Senator Obama to establish education opportunity grants for high school students.

Our bill is similar to the Federal Pell grant program, which funds need-based aid that does not have to be repaid by the students. These grants could be made available for classes at community colleges or universities that would admit a high school student to enroll in classes. These grant scholarships will help keep our high school students in school by raising their expectations and showing them that they can do college-level work. They could also accumulate college- level credits while still in high school.

Our national dropout rate is at record highs, and it is on the rise. In my own home State of South Carolina, high school students are dropping out at an alarming rate, with half of all students failing to complete high school in 4 years. It is no secret that most of these at- risk students are from low-income families.

Currently, there are only two ways high school students can gain college credit. They either take the AP classes at high school or participate in dual enrollment programs. Some high schools, particularly those with a high percentage of low-income students, are not able to offer advanced placement classes, and students are required to forgo college classes that they might want to take because their families can't afford to foot the bill. The result is that students with great promise who happen to come from disadvantaged families lose interest in a school that does not offer classes tailored to their talents and interests.

Senator Obama and I believe if we expose students to the hundreds of classes available at their local colleges, some of which are listed on the chart behind me, many students who are not excited about high school world history classes will, instead, discover that they are interested in computer science or marketing and can learn a skill that they can see will directly apply to a future job.

Make no mistake, traditional classes in biology, English, and history are important. But if a student drops out because they don't have the flexibility to also pursue more nontraditional avenues, those classes do not do them any good.

Education opportunity grants are a cost-effective way to educate students by utilizing the preexisting infrastructure already available at local colleges. I believe this will show many students that a college degree is attainable and that they will be better prepared to start college or enter the workforce with marketable skills as a high school graduate.

As I mentioned before, I believe it is critical that we do a better job accommodating the needs of all our students and continue to create opportunities for each young person to learn in ways that make sense to them and have direct application to their goals in life.

This legislation is one more valuable option for our educational system to empower students and parents with choices and the ability to follow an educational path that meets their individual needs.

It is time we stopped forcing our kids to fit our educational system and, instead, force our educational system to fit our kids. That is the only way that success in school will mean success in life.

I thank Senator Obama and his great staff for working with my office on this important legislation, and I look forward to working with the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, and the Senator from Massachusetts, Ranking Member Kennedy, to make this legislation a reality.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the years of dedicated service that William Walter Wilkins, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, has given to the Federal judiciary. Hailing from my hometown of Greenville, SC, his contributions to South Carolina and our Nation are immeasurable.

Chief Judge Wilkins began his public service in 1967 as an officer in the U.S. Army, eventually earning the rank of colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves. Upon his honorable discharge from the Army, Chief Judge Wilkins worked as a law clerk for the Honorable Clement F. Haynsworth, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit until 1970, then going on to become a legal assistant for the late Senator Strom Thurmond. And Senator Thurmond got it exactly right when he called Chief Judge Wilkins ``a man of character and unquestionable integrity.''

While in private practice, Chief Judge Wilkins was elected as the first Republican Solicitor for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit since Reconstruction, a post that showcased his extensive knowledge and mastery of the legal profession.

In 1981, newly elected President Ronald Reagan used his first Presidential appointment to nominate Chief Judge Wilkins to the position of the U.S. District Judge for the District of South Carolina. Chief Judge Wilkins was confirmed by this body on July 20, 1981 and received his commission on July 22, 1981.

In 1985, President Reagan appointed Chief Judge Wilkins to be the first Chair of the United States Sentencing Commission, where he was given the task of creating guidelines for the sentencing of Federal defendants. He served in this capacity until 1994. During that time, he was also appointed to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he has served as Chief Judge since 2003.

Chief Judge Wilkins is a nationally recognized jurist and is known for this scholarship, sharp wit, and unyielding allegiance to the rule of law. Not only is the State of South Carolina honored to be the home of a man of his integrity, but the United States is privileged to have such a distinguished jurist defending our American legal system.

I commend Chief Judge Wilkins for his 25 years of public service to the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 minutes in morning business.

Mr. President, earlier this year Republicans put together one of the most important bills we have considered, and Republicans asked for a vote on that important bill we call the Family Prosperity Act. Indeed, it does deal with the prosperity, the economic well-being, the cost of living for every American family. It contains three very important measures and all enjoy majority support in the Senate. One was permanent death tax relief, another was the extension of very important expiring tax provisions, and a minimum wage increase of more than 40 percent.

The bill represents a true bipartisan compromise. Yet it met unified Democratic obstruction that prevented it from receiving an up-or-down vote. I do not think I have ever seen a vote that

has so clearly demonstrated Democrats' willingness to turn their backs on American families in order to score political points. I believe Americans understand that Republicans worked hard to reach a true compromise that would raise the standard of living for all American families. I think they will remember that after years of rhetoric, Democrats proved they were all talk and no action.

For years Republicans, along with many Democrats, have worked for permanent death tax relief because it is an immoral double-tax that punishes death and savings. As the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, said when she was running for office in the year 2000:

[Y]ou ought to be able to leave your land and the bulk of

your fortunes to your children and not the government.

Other Democrats have supported death tax relief in the past, including Senators Wyden, Bayh, Pryor, Landrieu, and Cantwell. Even the minority leader, Senator Reid, has said he is for ``fixing the estate tax.'' Yet when it came time to vote, they joined their fellow Democrats to block death tax relief.

The Family Prosperity Act also extends several important tax relief provisions that are set to expire in October to extend several critical relief measures, including State and local sales tax deductions, research and development tax credits, college tuition deductions, work opportunity tax credits, welfare-to-work tax credit, depreciation for restaurants, timber capital gains, teacher classroom expense deductions.

These tax relief provisions enjoyed broad bipartisan support and need to be renewed to keep our economy growing. Instead, in August, Democrats obstructed these items and essentially voted to raise the cost of living for American families.

Additionally, the Family Prosperity Act contained a longtime priority for Senate Democrats, a 40-percent increase in the minimum wage.

I must make it clear that I personally oppose a minimum wage increase, as do many of my Republican colleagues. Economists agree that raising the minimum wage prices people with low skills out of the job market and keeps them from getting a job that ultimately pays higher wages. Yet Republicans such as myself are willing to vote for this true compromise bill. Unfortunately, Democrats chose election-year partisan obstruction instead of lowering the cost of living for American families.

However, today we can change this. We are nearing the end of the 109th Congress, and we have debated these issues over and over. We now have one final opportunity to get this right and pass this bill to secure America's prosperity. In fact, I understand that some Democrats just gave a press conference earlier today urging the passage of the tax relief extensions in this Family Prosperity Act. Well, they are about to have their chance. The Democrats now have one final opportunity to either do what is right for American families and lower the cost of living or they can choose to continue their partisan political games of blocking American priorities so they can try to blame Republicans as a do-nothing Congress.

Yes.

The Senator from Texas knows as well as I do that this has become the pattern of our Democratic colleagues: to purposely block important legislation and then attempt to come down and blame Republicans or blame the President when it doesn't actually get done.

I am excited, as the election nears, that the American people are much smarter than that. They are going to clearly see through those attempts. These important things which need to be done, many of which we have been able to accomplish despite Democratic obstruction, are still being blocked by our Democratic colleagues.

Yes.

Yes, I am aware. And I am aware that all of the bills and legislation that my colleague mentioned have majority support in the Senate. But by using procedural blocking techniques, the Democrats have kept these from coming to a vote, or even debated in some cases. But, again, I am confident the American people, as they focus on what we have been doing--and I realize our Democratic colleagues produced their commercials to call us a do-nothing Congress several months ago, so it has become very important for them in the last days of this Congress to block everything that they can. But we have several important pieces of legislation this week related to the security of this country that we need to pass, and we are going to have the opportunity in a few minutes to hopefully get unanimous consent to pass the Family Prosperity Act, to give people a raise in the minimum wage, to pass these tax extenders, and to create a compromise on this death tax, which is so immoral and hurts so many families.

Yes.

I am glad the Senator from Texas brought that up because this morning our distinguished colleague from New Mexico was talking

about how Republicans have done nothing significant to lower health insurance costs when, in fact, the small business health plan would have done just that. I was a small businessman for many years. Health care is one of the highest expenses we had. The chance to pool together with small businesses all over the country to buy insurance, just like large companies can do, is a commonsense measure that should have been passed in the Senate, yet was blocked by our colleagues.

Mr. President, we have the opportunity to correct a wrong. An important bill was blocked. I would like, as we consider this Family Prosperity Act this morning, to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 562, H.R. 5970, which is the Death Tax Repeal Act, which we call the Family Prosperity Act. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, and a motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. President, we see again a bill that has been debated and considered for many months, a bill on which a press conference was held this very day saying we need to pass a major portion of it. Yet at every turn there is blocking.

I would like to take a few minutes--and if the Presiding Officer would let me know when I have 5 minutes left--to talk about one of the provisions of the Family Prosperity Act. My friends on the other side of the aisle are holding up legislation that would prevent an enormous increase in the death tax on everyday Americans. I will talk more about this chart, but Democrats widely claim that the death tax impacts only a few of the wealthiest Americans. The truth is, the only reason the death tax doesn't affect more hard-working Americans today is that it currently--the Republicans have passed temporary legislation that is phasing out the death tax, as we can se on this chart through 2010. And we have done this despite Democratic obstruction. But as you can see from this chart, if the Democrats have their way, a huge number of American families will be in the death tax death grip in 2011.

Minority Whip Durbin, my colleague from Illinois, said this about the death tax:

How many families will benefit if the estate tax is

repealed? Each year in America, a Nation of 300 million: only

8,200 families. You have to search long and hard to find

them. These families are so well off, who have done so well

in this great Nation, who have benefited from this democracy

and the blessings of liberty, who have enjoyed a comfortable

life because of their prosperity, who now have taken millions

of dollars to hire the most effective lobbyists in

Washington, DC to push this outrageous special interest

legislation, the fattest of cats in America will get a great

bowl of tax cuts, tax cuts on the estate tax.

Senator Durbin argues against full repeal of the death tax, but we are not arguing for full repeal of the death tax. Our legislation would simply prevent an enormous increase in the death tax, while Senator Durbin is arguing that we should let the death tax increase in 2011 to a top rate of 60 percent. That is not taxing, it is taking. No, in fact, it is stealing.

Senator Durbin also argues that the death tax only affects 8,200 families. The truth is, the death tax doesn't affect 8,200 family members who may die; it affects millions of family members still living who are left to deal with Uncle Sam's sticky fingers.

Let's take a look for a minute at homes in Senator Durbin's State. Keep in mind, in 2011, if Senator Durbin has his way, all estates of $1 million or more will be taxed at a very high rate.

He says: You will have to search long and hard for these families.

But look at these homes in Chicago that he says are owned by the fattest cats. These are very modest and some would consider lower scale homes, all valued at over $1 million today. Are these the wealthiest Americans? If you look at Chicago, right now over 36,000 homes in urban areas would be affected by the 2011 death tax. But if you move ahead to 2011 and look at the number of homes in the Chicago area that will be affected by the death tax, the Democratic death tax increase, you are looking at more than 143,000 homes. You don't have to look long and hard to find that many houses.

What about other cities? By 2011, when the death tax is raised to the Democrats' level that they want, if you look around the country, over 500,000 in New York City, over 200,000 in Boston, over 250,000 in Newark. If you go to Atlanta, 26,000; Chicago, as I said, 143,000; San Francisco, over a quarter of a million; Los Angeles, 812,000. You don't have to look long and hard to find these homes.

The Census reports that just over 1 million homes in 2004 were subject to the death tax at the Democrats' level of 2011. In 2005, that number reached 1.4 million, over a 40-percent increase. As properties continue to appreciate, that number will continue to increase year after year, subjecting more and more Americans to the Democratic death tax. If you look at 2005, under the levels that will happen in 2011, there has been a 143-percent increase in the number of homes that will be affected, just in 2 years, based on the Democratic death tax.

Let's talk about some farms. Let's look at who these families are who Senator Durbin claims have enjoyed a comfortable life--the ``fat cats'' as he calls them. There are nearly 30,000 farms in Illinois alone, many of them owned by families whose comfortable life has made them a target of Senator Durbin's death tax should we not vote to block the impending tax increase. Based on 2002 Illinois Farm Bureau figures, over one- fourth--26.7 percent--of all Illinois farms would currently be subject to the death tax at Senator Durbin's rate of taxes in 2011. In 2011, you will have about 30,000 Illinois farms, or over 40 percent of all farms will likely be subject to the death tax. When we fail to prevent the 2011 Durbin death tax increase, it will not be hard to find almost one-half of Illinois' farms. If you take the USDA figures, the Department of Agriculture, they say that over half of the farms in Illinois will be subject to the death tax in 2011 if Senator Durbin gets his way.

How many farms will be eligible if hit by the Democratic death tax increase in 2011? Well, again, the fat cats we are talking about, if you look at Arkansas, you have nearly 5,000; Missouri, 9,200; Iowa, nearly 20,000 farms; South Dakota, 5,500; in California, 20,000. Lots of family farms are going to be affected by the Democratic tax increase.

Let's talk about small businesses, really the backbone of the American economy. Who are these--to quote Senator Durbin--``the fattest of cats who have taken millions of dollars to hire the most effective lobbyists in Washington, DC to push this''--as he calls it-- ``outrageous special interest legislation.''

Again, his numbers are somewhat questionable. The National Federation of Independent Business reports that 1.4 million small businesses would currently be subject to Durbin's tax increase in 2011 if the Democrats get their way. And by 2011, an additional 1.2 million will be eligible for the tax. A vote against the Republican legislation to reform the death tax is a vote to increase the death tax on 2.6 million small businesses.

Are these 2.6 million hard-working small business owners and employers the fattest of cats? Small businesses that we all use every day will be affected.

Let's take a closer look at some of the specific examples of these family farms, family homes, and family-owned businesses if the death tax is implemented the way the Democrats want. I will use one. The Greens, the Green family--Greens Printers. For 97 years, Janet Green and her family have owned and operated Greens Printers, Inc., in Long Beach, CA. Her company operates a sheet-fed, four-color printing plant with full bindery and electronic capabilities. The family wants to remain in business for many years to come. The fact that they have to pay a ridiculous insurance premium for the sole purpose of paying a tax when they die is not only absurd, it is antibusiness. However, the future of Greens Printers is being threatened by the death tax. Janet's company cannot afford to pay an enormous life insurance cost that would help pay for the death tax when

her parents need to pass on the business.

Janet says:

Because we are a third generation printing facility, we

have already paid the estate tax in the early 1970's. Both of

my parents are well into their seventies and not insurable

because of ill health and the astronomical cost associated to

do so. At roughly $100,000 a year [for this insurance

policy], we cannot afford it.

She says:

Let my employees keep their jobs and let us maintain the

risk of owning the business to keep them employed.

She is reminding us it is not just the family that is affected, but it is everyone who works for these businesses who are ruined by this death tax.

Over the years, Green has tried not only to be successful in generating profits, but also successful at being a good neighbor. She does this by supplying 20 people in the community with good jobs and benefits, and by building lasting relationships with employees that allow the company to plan for future growth and the workers to enjoy a stable income and fulfilling livelihood.

Her family wants to keep Greens Printers even after she is gone.

We have 16 grandchildren who would love to take over the

company and see it grow someday.

She asked us in Congress:

Does Congress really think that we small, family-owned

businesses out here have hundreds of thousands of dollars

tucked away for estate taxes? Any money we make we put right

back into the business by purchasing new equipment and hiring

more employees.

Let's look at another business, the Barthle Brothers Ranch, in Florida. These are some more fat cats, as Senator Durbin would call them. Larry, Mark, and Randy Barthle are brothers who share a similar story with many ranchers around the country. They are trying to maintain the family ranch their father built in the early 1930s so they can pass it on to future generations.

The ranch has received national recognition for its environmental stewardship practices that protect and promote the environment and wildlife. The family is dedicated to youth development to encourage future generations of ranchers to care for resources responsibly.

Larry Barthle says:

Our family was first struck by the Death Tax in the early

1970s when both my grandfather and uncle passed away within a

short period of each other. We had to sell 1,200 acres of the

ranch. Every penny went to pay taxes assessed to us and we

still had to take out a loan for the balance. Not one cent

was used for anything except taxes. After such a devastating

blow, it was my father's lifelong goal to be able to pass

along the ranch to his kids without being hit by the Death

Tax. He was successful at the time of his death because he

was able to make the transfers to my mother. We currently

have our ranch set up [in all kinds of legal frameworks in

order to try to get it through the death of another owner.]

This is not fair to American families and businesses.

Just one more quick example here, Mt. Pulaski Products. Scott and Kathryn Steinfort operate the family-owned Mt. Pulaski Products, Inc., in a small town in Illinois that bears the company name. It has been in business since 1951. They sell products that are absorbents and abrasives. For decades, the family has worked to build a successful business, which employs over 44 citizens there in Mt. Pulaski.

The Steinforts also are known for their community service, dedicated to serving the community. They have two sons. Both are serving in Iraq, both with engineering degrees. While many other engineering graduates are making big salaries, they serve our country. Someday they would like to join the company business, but the death tax looms over the family business. Without wealth, the Steinforts may be forced to sell the business to pay for the death tax, not only taking from future generations but possibly putting 40 families out of work. The say:

My wife and I have life insurance to cover these taxes, but

as we age our premiums are marching steadily higher. Combined

with not knowing how much we need to plan for in taxes and

fees, the potential costs ultimately point to only one path:

sale or liquidation of our plants to pay our tax burdens.

I have a lot more here that we could talk about, but I will put up one more chart. The Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, has told the American people that only 8,200 American families are affected by the death tax. The only reason that is today is because the Republicans have overcome Democratic obstruction and at least temporarily reduced the death tax. If the Democrats get their way, the tax on the American family will reach over 3.3 million children and grandchildren of those who die in the 10 years after 2011. Over the next generation, millions of children and grandchildren and workers in small businesses and farms will be affected.

I ask all my colleagues, what is the difference between these numbers? The difference is the truth. We have been misled, that this tax is about the wealthiest of Americans. Whereas, as we have seen today, in the homes and the farms, the small businesses, this tax is immoral. It steals from the American people, the hard-working families who put together some savings to pass along to the next generation. It is not to the fat cats and their lobbyists. It is to the average Americans, who are doing what we expect them to do, and that is to work and to save and to build a better future.

Today we have seen again that the opportunity to compromise and at least reduce these taxes was blocked again by our Democratic colleagues. Yet they come to this floor every day and ask why we are not doing something for the cost of living of the American people, to help improve their future. I think the reason for this is obvious. Senator Cornyn brought it up a minute ago. The Democratic strategy is to block what needs to be done and then try to blame someone else when it does not get done. The American people are smarter than that and they will see the difference.

I yield the floor.