Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business. I certainly will not take 10 minutes that the majority leader has requested because I know the Senator from Alabama is eager to speak. I wish to make sure I understand where we are with regard to the debt ceiling.

I have an article from The Hill, dated yesterday. It points out--it heard the same thing in the speech the rest of the Nation heard when the President spoke--the President said he would be willing to work on any plans lawmakers brought to him over the weekend. The President went on to say:

The only bottom line I have is that we have to extend this

debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013.

I ask my colleagues what does the election of 2012 have to do with the debt ceiling? What does it have to do with deciding to pay our obligations after August 2? What does it have to do with avoiding the calamity we have all heard about from both sides of the aisle and certainly from the administration? It strikes me as very odd that most debt ceiling extensions have been about 7 months during a decade-long period, and for some reason because of the election of 2012, the President of the United States wants to extend the deadline past that election into 2013. I think it makes Americans wonder if the President is playing politics with this very important issue.

The President went on to say in the press conference that we all listened to that he wondered if the Republicans were able to say yes to any agreement. That was the President on Friday evening. Now we come to Washington, DC today with the clock ticking, 8 days away from a supposed debacle, and I read in today's Wall Street Journal

this report by Jamie Dupree, President Obama last night rejected a bipartisan deal offered to him by congressional leaders of both parties which would have provided for a short-term extension of the debt limit in order to avoid a U.S. Government default. The agreement involved Speaker Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and Senate GOP Leader McConnell. In fact, according to this Wall Street Journal article, staffers from Senator Reid and Senator McConnell's offices were working on the legislative language together on Sunday. When Reid took the bipartisan, bicameral plan down to the White House, it was rejected by the President.

I ask my colleagues: Who is unable to say yes? The Democratic majority leader of this body said yes to a bipartisan agreement. The Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, the leader of that majority in the other body, said yes to an agreement. Senator Reid's colleague and friend, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, said yes to a bipartisan agreement, and then Senator Reid was given the task of taking it to the President of the United States and the President rejected it.

I think Americans have a right to ask who is unable to say yes to a bipartisan deal that gets us out of this box. Who is playing politics with this issue? The public debt is $14.2 trillion. We meet the deadline a week from tomorrow. The clock is ticking. The President had an opportunity to say yes to a bipartisan agreement endorsed by the leadership of this Congress and yet he said no. I am calling on this President, on my President, to do the right thing by the American people and to do the right thing for our country and for our economy and ask this bipartisan group of leaders to come back to the White House and say yes to the agreement which they offered him last night.

I thank the President. I thank the Senator from Alabama for allowing me to go in front of him.

I yield the floor.

I think absolutely it should cause concern and this is something both parties have campaigned on in the past, the lack of transparency, the lack of time, things being rushed through at the last minute. But my larger point is that on Friday afternoon the President was calling for a plan, any plan. He said there was only one condition: We must be political about it. We must get past the presidential reelection in 2012. Then on Sunday night not just any plan was presented to the President but a bipartisan plan by both leaders in this body on behalf of their membership and the Republican Speaker of the House who said, we believe we can get this through, and the President rejected it out of hand. That is the larger point.

The point of the Senator from Alabama is well taken. The legislative language is important. The agreement in concept is one thing, but as he is pointing out, the legislative language is also important. As ranking member of the Budget Committee, he knows full well Members need time to see if the language actually reduced the concepts into writing that can be enforced and work long term to get us out of this horrendous debt crisis we are in. I appreciate the Senator's point.

I wonder if my friend would yield on the matter of the process.

Of course, the process is important, and it is designed for the President and the Congress to work together to solve these problems. I think the process may be broken, which I think points up why we really, bottom line, need a constitutional amendment to require the President to submit a balanced budget and to require this Congress to enact a balanced budget.

You know, the President submitted a budget to us with deficits as far as the eye could see. The budget was brought to a vote under sort of an interesting procedure here, and it didn't get one single vote. Not one Republican, not one Democrat would vote for President Obama's budget.

We hear rumblings that the Democratic chairman of the Senate Budget Committee may actually be about to bring a budget forward. It has been 800 days. We passed the 800-day mark last week. The chairman of the Budget Committee and the process have failed to work to actually bring a budget out to the floor, out from behind closed doors, as my friend from Wisconsin had said, and let us vote on all of these procedures.

So I would simply say the President's budget was a nonstarter. I think if the Senate Democratic version ever were to be devised and brought to the floor, it would be a nonstarter, which is why we haven't seen such a proposal in 800 days.

Bottom line: Republicans are united on this side in resisting tax increases on our economy at a time when we are at 9.2 percent unemployment, and we are united--all 47 of us--in saying we need a basic change in the process in this country of enacting a balanced budget amendment and sending that amendment out to the States for ratification. That would be the type of process reform I think the American people agree we need.

Well, I guess I got to the House in 1995; my friend from Alabama came to the Senate 2 years later.

I don't think we could have imagined an annual deficit of $1.5 trillion in 1 short year. We are spending that much more than we are taking in. In other words, we take in $2.2 trillion a year, approximately, and we spend $3.7 trillion a year, a difference of $1.5 trillion. I don't think we ever expected it to get that serious when the Senator from Alabama and I first got here.

Clearly there is no way we can turn back the clock, but the Senator is correct. If we had enacted with just one more vote in this very body a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, clearly we would not be facing this fiscal crisis.

I want to also make a very important point, and it is what all of the papers are talking about, and that is whether somehow a tax increase targeted to deficit reduction is the thing to do.

Listen, my friends, Republicans and Democrats over time until recently have been united in saying tax increases are a bad thing to do. I want to ask my colleagues if they can help identify the public official who said this quote:

The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the

middle of a recession, because that would take more demand

out of the economy and put businesses in a further hole.

Would any of my colleagues care to guess? Senator Lee?

Absolutely. Somehow the President, who made a very cogent and correct statement in 2009, has completely changed his tune now.

We could have a budget deal in place on the floor of the House and Senate and ready to be passed if the President of the United States would simply come back to the position he took in 2009 and 2010. As late as December of 2010, the President was telling the New York Daily News we should keep the tax rates in place. The budget chairman in the Senate told Reuters last July, only 1 year ago, that he supported extending the tax cuts and keeping them in place, because to raise taxes on the private sector during a time of economic downturn is taking money out of the private sector and killing its ability to create jobs.

I would simply call on my colleagues from the other side of the aisle to return to the position they had 1 year ago and 2 years ago. Let's get a budget deal that addresses the debt by cutting spending and be united as we were on that issue some 1 year and 2 years ago.

Mr. President, I wonder if my colleague from Mississippi will yield at this time.

Yes, I appreciate that.

Mr. President, this weekend, a local newspaper in Mississippi ran a lead editorial that wondered aloud whether the cancellation of the Senate's Independence Day recess signaled a ``serious effort on the part of Senate leaders'' and the White House to make headway in addressing the Federal debt. Regrettably, the answer to that question is obviously no. For that reason, I wish to announce at this point that I will be voting no this afternoon on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to a debate on Libya.

Clearly, Libya is an important issue. I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. I have the greatest of respect for both my chairman and the ranking member. But I will remind colleagues what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said recently: The most important national security issue facing the United States of America is the national debt and we should not move to a vote on Libya and to a discussion on Libya--which, frankly, is almost academic at this point--until we debate the crucial issue facing the Senate; that is, the issue of the national debt.

If we had a serious effort to talk about the national debt, in this week of recess that has been canceled, we would be convening the Budget Committee today and asking them to report a budget on the floor for the first time in almost 800 days so we could have a debate on the floor about the budget.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have another minute.

If the Senate majority were serious about their efforts to reduce the Federal debt, the administration would not be continuing its efforts to spend our way to prosperity. We would be bringing to the floor a budget to cut spending, to make a serious effort against these huge Federal deficits we are seeing. We would not be engaging in the politics of fear. We would not be engaging in the politics of class warfare. We would be getting to business this week. I hope that is what we will do.

The only way I know to get that debate is to vote ``no'' on the motion for cloture this afternoon. I think a number of my colleagues will be doing so. If some 41 of us can muster a ``no'' vote on the motion to invoke cloture, then we can have the debate on Libya at another time and we can get today and this week to the one and only reason we are back in town; that is, this debt that consumes us, that threatens our national security, our national well-being and we are called upon to debate by our colleagues and our constituents.

I thank my friend from Tennessee for yielding.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Offshore Production and Safety Act, a measure to increase domestic production of oil and natural gas in this country.

There are any number of things that make the United States the great Nation it is. Three of these things relate directly to the debate on the legislation that we will vote on this afternoon. They include our bountiful natural resources, the freedoms established by our Founding Fathers, and the determination of the American people.

The measure offered by the majority yesterday would have worked to stifle these very characteristics by discouraging economic activity, taxing industriousness, and putting more of our resources off-limits for development. From the oil wealth of the gulf coast, to the coal reserves of Appalachia, from the hydroelectric power that characterizes much of the American West, to the oilfields of Alaska, America is blessed with an almost boundless supply of energy wealth. From the time of this Nation's founding, Americans have sought to explore and develop this bounty. I am pleased to note that in recent decades we have become more responsible stewards of this endowment.

Last night, I held a telephone townhall meeting with many of my constituents, and the issues of gasoline prices and energy independence were raised repeatedly. It is certainly not surprising in light of the high gasoline prices we are facing today. As I told Mississippians again last night during this townhall meeting that I favor an all-of- the-above approach to addressing America's energy needs. I have supported, and continue to support, innovation in the area of biofuels, geothermal power, wind, and solar energy.

At the same time, however, we need to address current needs with currently available domestic energy resources, such as oil and natural gas. The measure we debate today, the Offshore Production and Safety Act, is a balanced one that offers a timely way forward by presenting a path toward lower fuel prices, job creation, and energy independence.

This legislation is responsive to the needs of the American people, not at some uncertain date in the future but now, making use of the resources and technology available today.

The specifics of the legislation before us are straightforward and commonsense. This bill would require proposed lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico, in the Mid-Atlantic, and those off of Alaska to be completed. It would cut bureaucratic redtape while speeding up the approval of drilling permits. Energy activities suspended during the administration's moratorium on offshore drilling would be extended by 1 year. Safety considerations are also taken into account under this bill, taking lessons that we learned from last year's Deepwater Horizon tragedy, to make deepwater drilling safer than before.

Energy independence--a goal we all share--can only be achieved through conservation, innovation, and domestic exploration, but domestic exploration must be a part of this in order for us to obtain independence.

According to a 2009 report by the CRS, America's combined recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth. It is far larger than the reserves of Saudi Arabia, China, and Canada. We have the resources to meet our energy needs. I point out again that this is the independent Congressional Research Service that tells us this.

Closely related to this issue is the one of job creation in America-- one that we should all be interested in with the unemployment rate currently at 9 percent. America's oil and natural gas industry is responsible for 9.2 million jobs in this country. I know the people who have those jobs are proud to have them. I know the families who are supported by those jobs are proud of their family members who work in this industry. Wouldn't it be great if we can expand that 9.2 million to a higher figure?

There was much discussion yesterday about taxation and budget considerations. Oil and natural gas production in the Gulf of Mexico raised over $67 million in revenues for the Federal and State governments in fiscal years 2008 through 2010. That is according to the Department of the Interior. Millions more went to land and water conservation. But because of the administration's moratorium, energy production in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to decrease by 13 percent this year, as estimated by the Energy Information Administration. Again, that is an official organ of this government. Overall, U.S. production is projected to drop by 110,000 barrels per day this year. This is not progress.

The fact is, the United States is dangerously dependent on foreign sources for our energy needs. We import 60 percent of our petroleum needs in the United States. This is hardly a revelation. Yet the proposed bill offered by my friends in the majority would have led to increased dependence on the importation of energy from foreign countries, many of which are not supportive of American interests, to put it mildly.

Furthermore, the suggestion that the appropriate response to soaring prices of gasoline is greater taxation on the companies that produce gasoline simply runs counter to common sense. In the larger picture, the administration's energy policy is not comprehensive in nature because it fails to promote the utilization of proven domestic resources, and the traditional domestic production it allows comes wrapped in bureaucratic redtape. If our goal is to increase our energy independence in the near term, the White House seems to want to lead us in the opposite direction. We do not encourage the increased production of any good by raising taxes and imposing more regulations on it.

The McConnell alternative, which we will vote on this afternoon, takes a different strategy--one that would increase access to domestic oil and natural gas. It is a strategy that would create jobs and spur economic growth, while increasing government revenues and improving industry safety.

Oil and natural gas reserves are abundant and accessible in the United States today. Tapping these domestic resources is integral to lowering energy prices and making us more energy independent.

I urge my colleagues to support the Offshore Production and Safety Act as a logical, prudent step in the right direction for U.S. energy policy.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, do I understand correctly that we are continuing in morning business?

Mr. President, on several occasions I have risen to address my colleagues on the topic of Russia and the continuing sad state of the rule of law in the Russian Federation. Today, I rise once again to address the latest information regarding the absence of a rule-of-law framework in Russia's approach to businesses and investors. Specifically, this situation negatively impacts the United States and the entire international community.

There have been a number of poor decisions around the world related to the Yukos Oil issue that highlight Russia's hostility toward investment and business. As my colleagues may be aware, GML, the majority shareholder of the former Yukos Oil, previously headed by businessman and now political prisoner Mikhail Hoarders, has a $100 billion arbitration claim against the Russian Federation to obtain compensation for the Yukos assets which were summarily taken between 2003 and 2005.

Several recent developments demonstrate yet again that international courts do not recognize Russia's 2003 expropriation of Yukos Oil Company as legitimate and that former stakeholders of the company may pursue compensation for their assets that were seized improperly and, in essence, nationalized by the Russian State.

Court victories handed to shareholders involved in the dispute indicate that the international legal system

will not recognize the validity of Russia's bankruptcy of Yukos. In December 2009, the New York Times detailed one of these victories in which an independent arbitration panel made a jurisdictional ruling that shareholders of the former Yukos Oil Company, GML, had the right to file and pursue an estimated $100 billion in damages from the Russian Government. The tribunal determined that Russia, as a signatory, was bound by the Energy Charter Treaty and must adhere to its provisions. This claim now moves to the next stage, with a decision expected in October 2013--regrettably slow but moving surely.

The most recent victory occurred in December of last year and involved a second international arbitration tribunal in Stockholm, which awarded RosInvestCo UK, a minority shareholder of Yukos, $3.5 million for the damages resulting from the Russian Government's actions. This was the first case in which anyone seriously examined the claims of an individual Yukos shareholder. The panel independently and unanimously concluded that the Russian Federation was liable for expropriating RosInvestCo's assets. I stress to you that this was a unanimous decision even though the tribunal included a Russian arbitrator.

I bring these developments to the attention of my Senate colleagues because I believe they demonstrate a growing movement in the international community that holds Russia accountable for its actions toward investors, and it is a movement the United States should support.

Minority shareholders, such as RosInvestCo, are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to shareholders who lost billions that were rightfully theirs as a result of the seizure of Yukos assets. In the United States alone, shareholders were stripped of $6 billion to $12 billion.

Russia's actions toward Yukos remind us that investment in Russia is extremely risky. The international community is taking note. Americans are taking note. American legislators should take note.

Recent court decisions indicate that the legitimacy of the Russian Government's claims over Yukos assets are suspect at best.

With these thoughts in mind, I urge my colleagues to continue working to ensure protection and adequate mechanisms for U.S. shareholders and businesses doing business in Russia.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I rise to agree with my colleague from Nebraska, to support his amendment, and to congratulate him for his newfound enthusiasm for this idea.

Actually, on January 10, the House of Representatives passed a rule to reduce its spending by 5 percent. This measure was passed on a rollcall vote of 410 to 13. Soon thereafter, I was the first Senator to call on my colleagues in the Senate to cut their office expenditures by 5 percent. This small but symbolic step could save the taxpayers over $20 million.

On February 4, some 6 weeks ago, I requested unanimous consent to take up a sense-of-the-Senate resolution I authored, urging all Senators to take such action. Unfortunately, at that time and since then, there has been an objection from the other side of the aisle to this unanimous consent request.

My effort was bipartisan. I was joined by 14 of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, and I thank them.

We now have an agreement to take up my sense-of-the-Senate resolution by unanimous consent later in the day so as to expedite and refine enactment of the provisions of the Nelson amendment. Based on that understanding----

I commend the Senator from Nebraska for coming to this idea somewhat late. But I support his amendment nonetheless.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the treatment of American creditors by the Republic of Argentina. Almost 10 years ago, the Argentine government defaulted on over $81 billion in sovereign debt. Nearly $9 billion of this debt was held by the U.S. Government and American citizens. Following its default, Argentina made take-it- or-leave-it settlement offers well below international norms for settling sovereign debt defaults.

I am glad to report that recently Argentina has shown a willingness to negotiate in settling some of this debt. Argentina recently informed the Paris Club, a group of sovereign governments that includes the United States and represents 19 creditor countries, that it will pay its outstanding sovereign debt,

including $360 million owed to the United States. Argentina's willingness to pay its debts to the Paris Club demonstrates its capacity to go further and compensate private American creditors, who have been trying to collect outstanding debt from Argentina for years. The fact that Argentina has agreed to pay its public debts to other sovereign nations is a welcomed first step. However, private U.S. creditors are still owed billions of dollars.

As I mentioned before in this Chamber, these private creditors have won over 100 U.S. Federal court judgments against Argentina. Now that Argentina has shown that it can and will pay its debts through the Paris Club negotiations, the administration should work to get this issue resolved for the remaining American bondholders and taxpayers.

I hope my colleagues will join me in urging the administration to protect the well-being of the American citizens impacted by Argentina's failure to pay its debts.

Mr. President, under the previous order I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins.

Mr. President, do I understand I have 6 minutes remaining?

I was under the impression I had yielded 4 minutes to the Senator from Maine.

I will reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

I rise in support of the Wicker amendment. Senator Collins, who spoke earlier, is a cosponsor of this amendment. I might also note that Senator Coburn has joined as a cosponsor also. The Wicker amendment has everything to do with public safety. It has everything to do with preventing excessive litigation when it comes to the definitions of the roles of our TSA workers. It has everything to do with preventing increased deficits here in the United States and in the Federal Government.

For that reason, groups that support the Wicker amendment today and urge an ``aye'' vote include the Heritage Foundation, the Workforce Fairness Institute, and Americans for Tax Reform.

Just a little history for those who have not followed this debate over the last several days. Currently, TSA employees are not allowed to collectively bargain. That has been the policy of the Federal Government since the inception of the Transportation Security Administration. For a decade, TSA employees have not been allowed to collectively bargain.

Their rights and considerations and morale issues have been taken care of in other ways. Since the creation of TSA, its employees have been treated similar to those in the FBI, the CIA, and the Secret Service, for purposes of collective bargaining. In fact, in a 2003 memo, the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security, which is now the TSA Administrator, prohibited TSA security screeners from unionizing with collective bargaining rights.

The Under Secretary at the time made this decision ``in light of their critical national security responsibilities.'' That has been the regime under which we have operated the TSA for the entire existence of the agency.

Now, however, the Obama administration is intent on dolling out rewards to campaign supporters and they are moving to reverse this decades-long decision and to allow TSA workers to collectively bargain. My amendment would prevent that and, as I say, would keep the TSA employees under the same restrictions as the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service.

Senator Collins, in her modification to my amendment, provided some very important safeguards. It allows TSA workers to be under the Merit Systems Protection Board. It also provides Whistleblower Protection Act protections for TSA employees.

We are told our concerns about safety have been taken care of because the agreement or the decision by the TSA Administrator says we cannot have collective bargaining over other security issues. It named several, and then it says ``other security issues.'' What does that mean?

Well, that is what the former Administrator was talking about in the letter to Senator Collins. This is going to require litigation to determine what ``other security issues'' are. I will tell you what, apparently, is allowed under the Administrator's proposal. It does allow bargaining over the selection process for special assignment. It allows collective bargaining over the policies for transfers. It allows collective bargaining for shift training, as my friend from Iowa just acknowledged. All of these are going to make the TSA less flexible and less efficient in going about their business of protecting America.

I would close by saying this: There is a budget debate also. At the other end of this building, we are having hour after hour of debate about how to keep this deficit from ballooning, how to keep the cost of government from going up.

Does anybody think that allowing collective bargaining for 50,000 additional Federal employees is going to cut the cost of the Federal Government?

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

What is happening out in the States? State after State after State is facing bankruptcy, and a large part of it is the cost of government brought on by employee union contracts. That is just a fact. State after State, Governor after Governor, they are coming to Washington, DC and saying: We are going to have to do something about this. We are going to have break these contracts and save us from financial ruin.

At a time when Governors are moving in that direction and trying to get out from under these public employee collective bargaining agreements, would it not be the height of irresponsibility, would it not be the height of irony for the Federal Government to go in the other direction?

Vote for the Wicker amendment and save the taxpayers the additional money it will take to move to collective bargaining.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Mississippi Supreme Court Justice James Graves to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. I thank all of those on both sides of the aisle who have worked to get this vote scheduled and to bring us to this moment, where I am confident Justice Graves will be confirmed.

When that happens today and when he takes the oath, Justice Graves will bring a rich and distinguished background of public service to the Fifth Circuit. He is a Mississippi native. He graduated as valedictorian of Sumner High School in the small delta town of Sumner and went on to receive his bachelor's degree from Millsaps College before going to law school at Syracuse University.

Justice Graves currently presides as a justice on the Mississippi Supreme Court, where he has faithfully served since his appointment in 2001 and his subsequent election in 2004. Before being appointed to the Mississippi Supreme Court, Justice Graves served as a circuit court judge in Hinds County, MS, for 10 years.

Justice Graves is a dedicated family man and community volunteer. He has been honored on numerous occasions with awards recognizing his public service. Those who know him know he is particularly committed to teaching and motivating young people, particularly the young people of my State of Mississippi. I am confident that even in this position of increased responsibility and visibility, he will continue taking time to work with our Nation's young people.

I am proud today to speak on behalf of Justice Graves. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of his nomination to the Fifth Circuit.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 14 be modified with the changes I have sent to the desk.

Secondly, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following two Senators be added as cosponsors to my amendment: Senator Collins and Senator Coburn.

Mr. President, I called up my amendment last week. This amendment would prohibit TSA employees from entering into collective bargaining agreements. A lot has happened since I called up my amendment. The Transportation Security Administrator announced his intent on Friday to proceed with allowing TSA security employees to collectively bargain. That would reverse a decade of policy--since the inception of TSA, actually. Currently, TSA employees are not allowed to collectively bargain. The 2001 law that created TSA gives this decision to the Administrator, and previous Administrators have understood that collective bargaining agreements for TSA could compromise our Nation's security. TSA employees have been treated like those of the FBI, the CIA, and the Secret Service for purposes of collective bargaining. These personnel are treated very well by our government and taken care of in other ways. But because of the security concerns, collective bargaining is prohibited for those security personnel.

Frankly, I think many observers would conclude that the current administration is intent on doling out rewards to campaign supporters and, therefore, is moving to reverse this decade-old decision and allow for collective bargaining among TSA employees. On November 12, 2010, the Federal Labor Relations Authority decided TSA employees will be allowed to vote on union representation, and then the decision came along on Friday to allow them to have collective bargaining rights.

I don't believe our country needs 50,000 TSA screeners to be part of a union. But the Obama administration does. Adding workers to union rolls has been a high priority of the administration since day one. As I pointed out, the FBI, the CIA, and the Secret Service do not have collective bargaining rights because burdensome union demands could limit the ability of those responsible for security at some of the most high-risk targets and hamper them in getting their job done.

Let me review a little bit of history. When a British airliner bombing plot was uncovered in 2006, the TSA overhauled security procedures in a matter of 12 hours to deal with the threat of liquid explosives. They had to act very quickly and flexibly. It is difficult to imagine that kind of flexibility under inflexible union rules.

In 2006, following a severe midwestern snow storm, local TSA employees were unable to get to the airport, but TSA was able to fly personnel in temporarily from other airports to cover these snowed-in personnel. This helped keep the airport open and the security lines moving. I wonder how injecting collective bargaining into this type of situation would have impacted TSA's ability to be flexible, to be quick on its feet, and to move personnel around.

There is also the issue of testing and rollout of software to protect the privacy of passengers utilizing advanced imaging technology. This should be done on the basis of national security and passenger safety and privacy concerns, and not delayed because of union concerns or intervention in the management of TSA employees.

I would reiterate, TSA has existed for almost 10 years without collective bargaining, and there is no legitimate policy reason to change this procedure at this time.

Working with Senator Collins, who I believe is prepared to also speak today, I have modified my amendment to make it clear that TSA employees have the baseline protections that almost all our Federal employees have, while preserving the flexibility needed to keep our Nation safe. The modified amendment would codify the 2003 TSA policy that prohibits collective bargaining agreements with security screeners. We do not need to limit the flexibility to respond immediately to emerging and evolving threats.

My amendment would also allow the Merit Systems Protection Board to hear adverse employment actions, such as demotions or firings, so TSA employees would have the same protections as other Federal security employees.

Also, if these modifications are accepted unanimously today, they would codify protections under the Whistleblowers Protection Act and would create an employee engagement process for workplace issues. My amendment simply adds these protections into the statute.

I would also point out that it is the public employees union contracts that States are grappling with today. Several of our States are literally facing bankruptcy because of the expensive and burdensome government union employee contracts--Illinois, New Jersey, California. The Governors, on a bipartisan basis, are struggling to get out from under these burdens and to free their States from these expensive public employee union contracts. They are causing the bankruptcy of States.

In the U.S. Government, we have the ability to deficit spend, and that is quite a problem. We will spend $1.5 trillion this fiscal year that we don't have, and the American public is demanding that we do something about it. It is unimaginable to me that under those circumstances the Obama administration is taking action which can only make TSA more expensive and make dealing with our employees there more costly and add to the debt. I don't see any way around it.

As States and localities are moving in one direction, here comes the Obama administration and, swimming upstream on this issue, proposing to add to the public employee union collective bargaining regime some 40,000 to 50,000 additional Americans. I don't see how we can afford that. I don't see how it helps security or helps our Nation to adopt some more burdensome requirements, and I don't see how it helps national security.

I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Wicker amendment No. 14. That vote may occur as early as tomorrow morning, but I would urge its adoption. This is an issue that is not going to go away. It is going to be taken up in the other body. We are going to be following this issue, and it is something I think Americans feel strongly about.

At this point I would urge the adoption of my amendment.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from Washington, and I thank the Presiding Officer.

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so that I may call up my Wicker amendment No. 14, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, this amendment deals with the notion of collective bargaining by TSA employees. The Transportation Security Administration was formed approximately 10 years ago by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001, Public Law 107-71. Since that time, Transportation Security Administration employees have fared very well. They are a familiar sight in our airports. They are familiar to any of us who fly and who frequent the airports of the United States. It is a good job, and they are well taken care of.

During that 10-year period, TSA employees have not been allowed to collectively bargain. There is a reason for that. First of all, under that act which I referenced, as a compromise back in that day, the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security, who is now the TSA Administrator, was given the ability to fix the compensation and terms thereof, and included in that was the determination about whether collective bargaining rights would be afforded to these TSA employees.

In a 2003 memo, the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security at that time prohibited TSA security screeners from unionizing with collective bargaining rights. The Under Secretary wrote:

I hereby determine that individuals carrying out the

security screening function under section 44901 of Title 49,

United States Code, in light of their critical national

security responsibilities, shall not, as a term or condition

of their employment, be entitled to engage in collective

bargaining or be represented for the purpose of engaging in

such bargaining by any representative or organization.

The determination was made by the predecessor of the TSA Administrator that in light of their critical national security responsibilities, it was not appropriate for collective bargaining rights to be included.

Now we have every reason to believe that under this new administration, that decision is about to be reversed. A decade of experience and practice will be ended unless this Congress acts, and the appropriate vehicle on which to act is this reauthorization bill before us. Wicker amendment No. 14 would simply exclude TSA personnel from forming a union with collective bargaining rights. I point out to my colleagues that the FBI and the CIA and the Secret Service, which all have similar critical national security responsibilities, do not have collective bargaining rights either. So the spirit of amendment No. 14 would be to continue TSA employees in that same vein.

TSA workers have fared well indeed during the past decade. It is a good job. I enjoy seeing them, I enjoy working with them, and we are glad to have them. But for good reason, they have been excluded from collective bargaining rights.

The TSA and TSA leadership need the flexibility to innovate and to move quickly during times of national emergency on issues involving the security

of the traveling public, and for that reason I submit that adding the burdensome responsibility of union demands and dealing with collective bargaining demands could limit the ability of those responsible for the very important function of security at some of the most high-risk targets and make it harder for our security personnel to do their job.

So I will be urging my colleagues during this day--we will be urging the American people to contact their Senators and to let their voices be heard. TSA has worked well in this regard, and we do not need to burden it with extra responsibilities when they need to be concentrating on security.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise today in support of the McConnell amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill.

What we have this afternoon actually is an opportunity to show the American people that we are listening to them. The American people want the ObamaCare law--the affordable health care law, as it is known--to be repealed and replaced with something less expensive, with something workable. Polls show this, the individuals with whom we speak when we go home tell us this, and this vote will be an opportunity for us to show them we are listening.

I have heard some of my colleagues come to the floor this week and suggest that this massive, 2,000-page, tax-increasing, job-killing bill is, in fact, just what we need. I would suggest there are a number of facts that indicate otherwise. The other side would have us believe that without this health care law, this country is going to fall off the tracks and the world will virtually come to an end. They try to cite one or two popular proposals that are in this law, which, of course, could be enacted after repeal practically by unanimous consent, and ignore the fatal flaws in the law.

The former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, during the consideration of this act in the House and Senate, famously told a grassroots group that had come to Washington, DC: We need to hurry up and pass the bill so you can find out what is in it. Well, indeed, since the passage and signing of

the law of ObamaCare, every day the American people are finding out something new that is in the bill that they don't like. As a matter of fact, it turns out that Members of the House and Senate who voted for ObamaCare also did not know precisely what was in the bill and certainly did not anticipate the ramifications of this massive, ill- advised law.

Under the new law, it is absolutely a fact, and we know this, that Medicare will face over $500 billion in cuts, and senior citizens have a right to be concerned. Future senior citizens have a right to be concerned about these cuts. They include $155 billion from hospitals, $202 billion from Medicare Advantage, $15 billion from nursing homes, $40 billion from home health agencies, and $7 billion from hospice.

Cuts from these Federal expenditures in Medicare are to pay for the new ObamaCare legislation.

Everyone agrees that Medicare needs to be made more solvent, and we need to work on Medicare. But these reckless cuts will only make Medicare's problems worse.

Another thing Americans have found out about this affordable health care law which is being implemented even as we speak is that the law falls short of the President's goal of controlling runaway costs. In fact, it raises projected spending.

Last week, in his State of the Union Address, President Obama said the health insurance law we passed last year will slow these rising costs. This is simply not true. To support my assertion it is not true, I cite the President's own Actuary. CMS reports that, in fact, spending will be increased by about 1 percent over what it would have been over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, of course, the report points out, since the Medicare cuts I have pointed out may be unrealistic and politically unsustainable, according to the report. CMS said, overall, national health expenditures under the health reform act would increase by a total of $311 billion and that health expenditures will be 21 percent of the gross domestic product by 2019.

But it is not just the government bean counters who are worried. Here is what the National Federation of Independent Business said:

Small businessowners everywhere are rightfully concerned

that the unconstitutional new mandates, countless rules and

new taxes in the health care law will devastate their

business and their ability to create jobs.

That is the National Federation of Independent Business. The National Association of Manufacturers says that manufacturers remain adamantly opposed to the employer mandates and to the Medicare hospital insurance tax increases. These employers who are faced with incorporating the first round of health care changes are grappling and having difficulty with how to comply with the long list of new rules.

These are not scare tactics. These are not unwarranted fears by a confused public. These are people who work with health care every day and are telling us that this Congress has made a mistake. In fact, there are already real consequences of this health care reform law.

Abbott Laboratories said it is cutting about 1,900 jobs. It is just a fact. The job cuts come ``in response to changes in the health care industry, including U.S. health care reform and the challenging regulatory environment.'' That is simply a fact. It is not conjecture.

Blue Shield California Health Insurer recently stunned individual policyholders with a huge rate increase, effective March 1, seeking cumulative hikes of as much as 59 percent in premiums for tens of thousands of their customers. That San Francisco-based Blue Shield said the increases were the result of fast-rising health care costs and other expenses relating to the new health care law.

Again, just a fact, Madam President. It is also an absolute certainty that State taxes are going to go up, and they are going to go up big time unless we repeal this health reform law.

In my State of Mississippi, the legislation will cost the State $1.7 billion over 10 years, including $443 million in year 10 alone. From fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2020, the massive expansion of Medicaid will cost Mississippi taxpayers $225 million to $250 million extra each year. Our Governor--one of the staunchest opponents of tax hikes I have ever heard of--has stated that this law will certainly force the State of Mississippi to increase its taxes unless it is repealed. Again, these costs are simply facts. They result from the mandate.

Madam President, there is also bipartisan opposition to this law. We didn't see much bipartisan support for its repeal in the other body, and I was disappointed by that. But when you get off of Capitol Hill and out to individuals, it is not a Republican or Democratic issue. There is a bipartisan American opposition to this law.

I have repeatedly quoted former Governor Phil Bredesen, a Democrat of Tennessee, someone who ran as a Democrat in his State successfully twice and ran as the standard bearer for his party three times--a loyal Democrat who, of course, called this law the ``mother of all unfunded mandates.''

After the law was enacted, he wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on October 21, 2010. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Madam President, among other things, Governor Bredesen, who was still Governor at the time, said:

Our Federal deficit is already at an unsustainable level,

and most Americans understand that we can ill afford another

entitlement program that adds substantially to it. But our

recent health reform has created a situation where there are

strong economic incentives for employers to drop health

coverage altogether. The consequence will be to drive many

more people than projected--and with them, much greater

cost--into the reform's federally subsidized system.

The Democratic-elected Governor of Tennessee criticized this act. He pointed out other facts that are wrong. In his subsequent book on the subject, Phil Bredesen also criticizes the health care law, saying it will cause deficits to go up, costs to continue increasing, employers to drop coverage, State costs to increase, governments to grow, and will make our current problems worse.

``Obamacare is not what the doctor ordered,'' according to Governor Bredesen.

My time is limited. I could go on and on, and Members of the Senate and House could and will go on and on as we face this issue, if we don't win it today.

The facts are there. This is a terribly flawed piece of legislation. Facts are stubborn. The consequences have already started to mount up. Opposition is strong. Support for repeal is strong and bipartisan, and for those reasons I will vote in favor of the McConnell amendment when we consider it later today.

Mr. President, I am speaking today on a very important international foreign policy issue. That will be the subject of my address today. I wanted to come down here the first day of this legislative session, this 112th Congress, and talk about the deteriorating situation with regard to oppression and the rule of law in Russia. I have come to this floor a number of times to share my concern on this subject. I wish to begin this Congress by once again expressing my deep concern for what we see happening just in the recent days in Russia.

I remember looking back in 1990 and 1991 at the hope we had, the optimism we in the West had as we watched the Iron Curtain fall, as we watched the wall tumble in Berlin, and we watched with hope that this would be a new day for people behind the Iron Curtain and a new opportunity for freedom and openness in that society. Unfortunately, year after year, month after month, we have seen since the fall of the Soviet Union a very regrettable and disturbing deterioration in the rule of law in Russia and a move back to the authoritarian rule of old we all remember so well. Recent events in Russia once again cause us to believe this problem is escalating and have caused me to come to the floor today on this subject.

Last month, the leadership of this Senate pushed through, I think in haste, the New START treaty with Russia. I had concerns over the treaty, and I ultimately voted against it. We had a lot more debate that needed to take place. We had dozens of amendments that went undebated and unconsidered and not voted upon by this body, and I regret that. I always thought nuclear arms policy and treaties with regard to our nuclear stockpile should be based on the security of the American people and that the primary issue should be what is in the best interests of the United States. What we saw a lot of in the debate last month was instead an emphasis on New START as the centerpiece of this administration's effort to reset relations with Russia. I certainly support the resetting of our relations with Russia, but I do not believe the New START treaty was the best way to advance this.

But it should concern all of us, it should concern everyone within the sound of my voice, regardless of how we voted on New START that within 2 weeks' time of this body approving the New START treaty, a Russian court issued a second spurious guilty verdict against Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev. Almost simultaneously, authorities in Russia arrested prominent Russian opposition figure, former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov. These events took place within days of each other.

What do these recent events mean? To me, they are two other examples of the way the current Russian leadership does not respect universal values such as the rule of law or freedom of expression and assembly. The Russian Government does not share our commitment to international norms or fostering modernization. Resetting U.S.-Russian relations will be exceedingly difficult while these differences persist.

During the last Congress, I spoke several times on the trial of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev. I concluded my most recent remarks by saying that I hoped Russia would choose the right path and somehow justice would prevail in that case. Sadly, it did not. A Russian court issued another politically motivated guilty verdict against these two Russian dissidents. This disturbing verdict reveals that the Russian judiciary lacks independence and that Russian authorities

can act above the law at will. This latest verdict was not only sad for Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Platon Lebedev, and their families, but also for all people, for all of us who seek a more open Russia based on the rule of law.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's comments on the case before the verdict was even issued were very troubling indeed. According to the Associated Press, Russia's Prime Minister said that the crimes of the former oil tycoon have been proven--he said this before the verdict was even issued--and that a ``thief should sit in jail.'' Mr. Putin said Khodorkovsky's present punishment is more liberal than the 150-year prison sentence handed down in the United States to financier Bernard Madoff.

Citing the years of advocacy and statements from global leaders, the very respected publication The Economist explained that Putin's comments were ``a humiliating slap in the face of all those foreign dignitaries . . . who had lobbied Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's president, to stop persecuting Mr. Khodorkovsky.'' I agree with the comments contained in the publication The Economist.

In a democracy, courts are independent and the executive branch acts as a separate branch of government with no say in final court decisions. Prime Minister Putin's statement demonstrates that this separation does not exist in Russia.

As if the Khodorkovsky verdict did not make it clear enough that opposition will not be tolerated in Russia, Russian authorities arrested opposition leader and former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov on New Year's Eve. This took place during a reportedly peaceful antigovernment rally in Moscow. Approximately 70 others were also arrested. A Moscow court sentenced former Deputy Prime Minister Nemtsov to 50 days in jail for allegedly disobeying police. This arrest was a tremendous disappointment, but it certainly was not a surprise. The Russian Government had recently begun granting permission for semiregular protests. I use the term ``semiregular'' because it was granted only for the last day of months with 31 days.

I met with Mr. Nemtsov last March when he was here in Washington. He came to my office, and we had a very enlightening discussion about the future of Russia. I admired his dedication and commitment to promoting democracy in Russia, and I hope and pray for his safety during the remaining days in a Moscow jail cell.

Sadly, we have learned that not all those who opposed the Russian Government do, in fact, return from Russian jails. Sergei Magnitsky, who was a young Russian anticorruption lawyer employed by an American law firm in Moscow who blew the whistle on the largest tax rebate fraud in Russian history perpetrated by high-level Russian officials, is an example. Magnitsky was arrested shortly after he testified to authorities. He was held in detention for nearly a year without trial, under torturous conditions, and he died in an isolation cell on November 16, 2009, in Russia.

During the 111th Congress, I joined Senators Cardin and McCain in cosponsoring the Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Act, which would freeze assets and block visas to Russian individuals responsible for Mr. Magnitsky's unfortunate death. In this, the 112th Congress, I will continue to highlight the treatment of opposition figures in Russia and the regrettable erosion of the rule of law.

I urge President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to make the treatment of opposition figures a central part of our efforts to reset relations with Russia. In order to make progress on other issues, Russia needs to prove it is truly committed to the rule of law and the human rights of all of its citizens, including those who disagree with the government. Without this, our efforts to find common ground on other issues of mutual concern will continue to be undermined.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.