Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Following any leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half.

Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Department of Defense Authorization Act.

The Senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

The filing deadline for all first-degree amendments to the Defense authorization bill is 2:30 p.m. today.

We will continue to work through the amendments. The managers of this bill, Senator Levin and Senator McCain, are certainly experienced with this bill and the legislative processes, and they are going to do their best to move through this process as quickly as possible. We will notify Members when there are votes scheduled. We should be able to have a few votes today--at least I would hope so.

Mr. President, I am told S. 1917 is due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill.

The Senate Democrats' No. 1 priority of this Congress is to pass commonsense legislation; for example, tax cuts and infrastructure investments, all these ideas we have to put Americans back to work and revive our economy. The Republicans in the House, on the other hand, are focused on gutting the safeguards to keep our air clean, make workplaces safe, and check the greed of big Wall Street firms.

Never mind that wholesale destruction of measures which save millions of lives and trillions of dollars each year have no chance of passing. Never mind that nonpartisan experts and economists on both sides of the aisle say the so-called jobs agenda will not create a single job. House Republicans have complained we have not taken up and passed these policies, which would risk American lives while doing nothing to improve our economy. They insist we should waste weeks or months on legislation that is both dangerous and proven to fail.

But the Senate has too much work to do on legislation that would create jobs without risking American lives to waste time on these ineffectual, purely partisan measures. Our jobs agenda was designed to create jobs, not headlines.

In any case, the Senate has passed its own share of legislation--40 pieces, in fact--that have yet to be taken up by the House Republican leaders. The Senate has passed legislation that would

stop China from cheating American workers by manipulating its currency, evening the playing field for American exporters and saving jobs.

We passed a bill to modernize the air travel system. The FAA reauthorization is so important, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs but would also keep passengers safer and save money on travel time.

We passed a measure that would protect lives by keeping our foods safe from contamination. The House Republicans are refusing to take up these, period. The House Republicans blocked many reasonable jobs proposals with a proven track record of success. They are simply too busy rooting for our economy to fail and pursuing an extreme social agenda to work with Democrats to create jobs. That will not stop the Democrats from doing everything in our power to get the economy back on track. That is why Senator Casey has worked to put money back into the pockets of middle-class workers and small businesses by extending and expanding the payroll tax cut.

This legislation cuts taxes for 160 million American workers, saving the average family $1,500 each year. Those families will have more money to spend on their local economy, grocery stores, pharmacies, and giving communities across the country a financial shot in the arm.

The proposal would give payroll tax cuts to businesses, including 50,000 businesses in Nevada. More than 1.2 million Nevada workers would benefit from the payroll tax cut this year. Under our proposal, they will get even greater tax relief next year.

Payroll tax cuts have been a boon to the economy in every State in the Nation. In Kentucky, for example, the home of my friend the minority leader, 2.1 million workers took home $1.2 billion in payroll tax cuts this year alone. That is why the minority leader said in 2009 that a payroll tax cut ``would put a lot of money back in the hands of businesses and in the hands of individuals.'' The average Kentucky family will keep $1,330 of their hard-earned money next year under our expanded payroll tax credit, and 70,000 firms in Kentucky will benefit from these tax cuts.

Senator McConnell said in 2009: ``Republicans, generally speaking, from Maine to Mississippi, like tax relief.'' Yet the Republicans already appear poised to block this legislation.

Let's be clear on what a ``no'' vote on this proposal means. It is a vote to deny tax relief to millions of businesses. It is a vote to raise taxes for 120 million families by nearly $1,000. The Republicans who vote no will literally be taking money out of the pockets of middle-class families.

Once upon a time, Republicans rushed to cut taxes, regardless of which tax cut it was and whether it added trillions to the deficit. For example, the Bush tax cuts that we hear so much about added trillions of dollars to our deficit--and it is obvious what was going on during the Bush cuts--and now these tax cuts have not created jobs that amount to anything. Today, they are lining up against a new tax cut, my Republican friends, to put money back in the pockets of the middle class, ensure that businesses have more cash to hire new workers and get our economy moving immediately.

I hope Republicans will now start working with us to pass a tax cut for 160 million American workers and nearly every business in America. As my friend the Republican leader said: ``Republicans, generally speaking, from Maine to Mississippi, like tax relief.'' I hope they remember what the Republican leader said time and time again.

Will the Chair announce the business for the day.

This will be the last vote of this evening. Tomorrow we will have a vote around 11 a.m. on cloture on this bill, and we will work with the managers to see how they are going to work through the germane amendments.

Amendments No. 1115, as modified

Mr. President, since there is bipartisan support, why do we need a rollcall vote? Do we have to have a rollcall vote?

I ask unanimous consent that order be vitiated.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Girls' Protection Act of 2011. This legislation addresses a topic that is difficult to talk about. It deals with the issue of female genital mutilation, FGM, a harmful cultural ritual with origins in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, that involves the removal of part or all of female genitalia.

FGM has no medical justification and is not based in religious beliefs. In fact, FGM, which is usually carried out on young girls sometime between infancy and fifteen years of age, can cause lifelong physical and psychological damage. The procedure is typically performed without an anesthetic and can cause bleeding, shock, infections and even death because of hemorrhage and unhygienic conditions. Lifelong health consequences include chronic infection, complications during pregnancy and labor, as well as severe pain during urination, menstruation, and sexual intercourse. This cruel procedure has been internationally recognized as a violation of the human rights of girls and women.

I first learned about FGM in 1994 when I read an article reporting the arrest of two men in Egypt who arranged for the filming of this appalling ritual procedure being performed on a ten year-old girl. Although this ritual is predominately practiced in various parts of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, some ethnic communities in the United States continue to subject young girls to FGM. This compelled me to introduce legislation, which was enacted in 1996, that criminalizes the practice of FGM on girls under the age of 18 in the United States. The legislation I am introducing today seeks to strengthen this law by closing what is known as a ``vacation loophole'' by banning the act of transporting girls overseas to be subject to FGM.

While it is difficult to know precisely how many girls in the United States are at risk of being subject to FGM, estimates from various sources suggest that approximately 200,000 women living in the United States have been, or are at risk, of being subject to FGM. Enactment of The Girls Protection Act would help to better protect these girls by serving as a deterrent for those parents who are considering sending their young girls to their home countries to undergo FGM.

I am introducing The Girls' Protection Act today in honor of International Human Rights Defenders Day as well as the recognition of the Sixteen Days of Activism Against Gender Violence which occurs between November 25 and December 10 of each year. It is important to honor those individuals who are working, often under difficult circumstances and hostile social environments, for the advancement of women's health, dignity and human rights. The passage of this legislation would go a long way to support these efforts and to help end this degrading and inhumane practice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Girls' Protection Act of 2011. This legislation addresses a topic that is difficult to talk about. It deals with the issue of female genital mutilation, FGM, a harmful cultural ritual with origins in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, that involves the removal of part or all of female genitalia.

FGM has no medical justification and is not based in religious beliefs. In fact, FGM, which is usually carried out on young girls sometime between infancy and fifteen years of age, can cause lifelong physical and psychological damage. The procedure is typically performed without an anesthetic and can cause bleeding, shock, infections and even death because of hemorrhage and unhygienic conditions. Lifelong health consequences include chronic infection, complications during pregnancy and labor, as well as severe pain during urination, menstruation, and sexual intercourse. This cruel procedure has been internationally recognized as a violation of the human rights of girls and women.

I first learned about FGM in 1994 when I read an article reporting the arrest of two men in Egypt who arranged for the filming of this appalling ritual procedure being performed on a ten year-old girl. Although this ritual is predominately practiced in various parts of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, some ethnic communities in the United States continue to subject young girls to FGM. This compelled me to introduce legislation, which was enacted in 1996, that criminalizes the practice of FGM on girls under the age of 18 in the United States. The legislation I am introducing today seeks to strengthen this law by closing what is known as a ``vacation loophole'' by banning the act of transporting girls overseas to be subject to FGM.

While it is difficult to know precisely how many girls in the United States are at risk of being subject to FGM, estimates from various sources suggest that approximately 200,000 women living in the United States have been, or are at risk, of being subject to FGM. Enactment of The Girls Protection Act would help to better protect these girls by serving as a deterrent for those parents who are considering sending their young girls to their home countries to undergo FGM.

I am introducing The Girls' Protection Act today in honor of International Human Rights Defenders Day as well as the recognition of the Sixteen Days of Activism Against Gender Violence which occurs between November 25 and December 10 of each year. It is important to honor those individuals who are working, often under difficult circumstances and hostile social environments, for the advancement of women's health, dignity and human rights. The passage of this legislation would go a long way to support these efforts and to help end this degrading and inhumane practice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has received two requests from state attorneys general, one seeking access to records that the Committee obtained during its recent investigation into unauthorized charges on telephone bills and the practice of ``cramming,'' and the other seeking access to records that the Committee obtained during its investigation in 2009 into aggressive sales tactics on the Internet and their impact on American consumers.

These two resolutions would authorize the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, acting jointly, to provide records, obtained by the Committee in the course of these investigations, in response to these requests and to other government entities and officials with a legitimate need for the records.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I see the two managers of the Defense bill are on the floor today. The Republican leader is going to be here in a few minutes to give a speech. I am going to give one, but it should not take long. Then we can get to the bill.

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1867, the Defense authorization bill. At 5 p.m., the Senate will be in executive session to consider the nomination of Christopher Droney to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Second Circuit. At 5:30 p.m., there will be a vote on that nomination.

Mr. President, I trust that the Acting President pro tempore and all of our staff, everyone in this great Capitol complex, had a safe and happy holiday. I hope everyone is well rested because we have a difficult work period ahead of us. We have much to do over the next few weeks with the Hanukkah and Christmas holiday quickly looming ahead.

This week we need to finish the work on the Defense authorization bill and even more. This month we will also handle a number of nominations and extend unemployment insurance for Americans still struggling to find work during these difficult times, and we have more appropriations work to do.

The continuing resolution to fund the government expires on December 16. We must not neglect the responsibility to continue our work to put

Americans back to work. So we will take up additional pieces of President Obama's American Jobs Act.

This week we will introduce legislation that would give the economy a boost by putting money back in the pockets of middle-class workers and small businesses by extending and expanding the popular payroll tax cut. More than 120 million families took home an extra $120 billion this year thanks to this payroll tax cut we championed. The average family held on to more than $935 of their hard-earned dollars this year. We need to assure those families they can rely on that tax cut next year as well. This legislation does more than just protect the tax cuts Americans already count on; it deepens and expands that tax relief as well.

Next year, 120 million American families will keep an average of $1,500 because of this legislation. That means they will have more money to spend on essentials such as gas and food and buy things that will help spur economic growth in their communities.

Businesses will also benefit from this tax cut. Ninety-eight percent of American businesses will see their payroll taxes cut in half on their first $5 million of wages that they pay.

In Nevada, 50,000 businesses will benefit from this tax cut and many businesses will save tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. So this legislation will help families and businesses while spurring hiring and giving the economy a boost. It will be fully paid for with the small 3.25-percent surtax on income over $1 million. So a person who makes $1 million a year won't pay an extra penny. Someone who makes $1.1 million--that is an extra $100,000--will pay $3,250 more than they would have originally.

At a time when many working families are still struggling, we cannot afford not to extend and expand this important payroll tax cut. So I was disappointed to hear from some of my Republican colleagues, specifically the junior Senator from Arizona, who have already come out in opposition to this tax cut. I think it is fair to say that all Republicans have not, but my friend from Arizona did. This is wrong.

Those who loudly claim to care about keeping taxes low, too often it seems they only care about keeping taxes low for the richest of the rich. The same Republicans who today oppose a payroll tax cut for hundreds of millions of businesses and families last week jettisoned the hopes of a large-scale deficit reduction deal in the supercommittee because they insisted on massive, permanent tax giveaways for the rich. Cutting taxes for the middle-class families and businesses should be an area where Republicans and Democrats can find common ground, as we have in the past.

The opposition by Republicans is because this tax cut has President Obama's fingerprints on it. It was his idea. Republicans will not support it even though they know it is good policy for American families and businesses. Let's hope that is not the case for all of my friends.

Let's examine the effects of their purely political opposition to a commonsense tax cut. If Republicans block passage of this legislation, they will take money out of the pockets of American families. That is clear. For a family making $50,000 a year, this proposal we talked about would not only preserve an existing $935 tax break, it would put an additional $565 a year in the family coffers. If the Republicans get their way, that family will actually see its tax increase by $1,000.

If Republicans block this legislation, 120 million American families and 98 percent of American businesses will not get the tax cut next year. Instead, 120 million families and millions of businesses will be hit with a tax increase. Those numbers are startling. They are shocking. But the potential impact on the larger economy is downright scary.

Economist Mark Zandi of Moody's said the economy will likely plunge back into a full-blown recession--erasing the economic progress we have made--if we don't extend that cut.

It is clear neither our fragile middle class nor our fragile economic recovery can afford the kind of setback a failure to extend and expand these would bring. Republicans say we cannot afford to raise these taxes. If they choose to oppose this payroll tax cut, we will know what they meant to say was: We cannot afford to raise taxes on the rich. In fact, more clearly, we cannot afford to raise taxes on the rich, but we are happy to raise taxes on the middle class.

Mr. President, please announce the business of the day.

Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Republican leader be recognized to offer his statement as if during leader time, that there be no parliamentary efforts on his behalf at this time, and that when he finishes his leader statement, I have the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of debate only on the DOD authorization bill until 5 p.m. today.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, there will be no more votes tonight. We hope the managers of the bill can process some amendments, but there will be no more rollcall votes tonight.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

That is fine. We would have debate only on this matter, with Senator Leahy recognized for up to 10 minutes and Senator McCain for up to 10 minutes.

By then we hope to have a unanimous consent agreement that would be universal in nature.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the pending McConnell amendment No. 1084 and the pending Menendez amendment No. 1292 be withdrawn and it be in order for the majority leader or his designee to call up the Menendez-Kirk amendment No. 1414; that notwithstanding cloture being invoked, if invoked, that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, and prior to the vote on passage of the Defense authorization bill, there be up to 1 hour of debate equally divided in the usual form on the Menendez-Kirk amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Menendez-Kirk amendment; further, that no amendments, motions, or points of order be in order to the amendment prior to the vote other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive.