Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I was scheduled to come in at 2 o'clock. I appreciate the leader accommodating me 5 minutes early. There is talk about an imminent compromise among the Gang of 8 and perhaps a couple of others that would move this bill along. I have made it clear that the bill, as currently written, is flawed and would not be something that would get my vote. So anything that would move us toward a better solution, toward better enforcement of the border, such as 20,000 additional security agents on the border, would be a positive step. I do wish to make it clear, however, that the bill as written would not stem the tide of illegal immigration. The bill as written would not provide a solution to our broken immigration system. Without further amendment, my understanding of the new compromise that is about to come forward also would be deficient. I appreciate people working toward a consensus. I look forward to reading the amendment as it is presented, if it is indeed presented later this afternoon or later this weekend. But there are still changes that need to be made so we can improve the bill. I would point out to my colleagues that a Congressional Budget Office report released the day before yesterday indicates that border security components of the immigration bill as written will not stem the tide of illegal immigration in a meaningful way, because large numbers of people are projected still to overstay their visas. Should the legislation pass in that form, even the Congressional Budget Office, a bipartisan, independent call-it-by-the-numbers office, predicts that the reforms agreed to by the so-called Gang of 8 would reduce illegal immigration by only 25 percent, far short of what the bill's supporters have contended. Dependable border security and interior security are crucial to the success of the entire immigration system. This means putting in place the proper infrastructure and technology, including a national E-Verify system for employers. I congratulate and commend and encourage the junior Senator from Ohio Mr. Portman for his efforts to move toward a consensus in that very important area of the bill too. These steps, securing the border and strengthening E-Verify, should proceed efforts to grant legal status. I think most Americans agree with that. I have offered a number of amendments. I wish to take these few minutes to make my suggestions about how to improve this bill. But first and foremost, I wish to urge my colleagues, urge the leadership of the committee on both sides of the aisle and the leadership of this Senate to give this Senate an opportunity to speak on the issue of sanctuary cities. Most people are aware that one of the great ways to flout the law, as it has been, has been for a local jurisdiction to say to people who have overstayed their visas, to people who have come here illegally or stayed here illegally: Come to our city and we will provide you sanctuary. Come to our city and we will ignore the law of the land and make sure we do our part that it is not enforced against you--so-called sanctuary cities. As a Member of the other body, I voted for legislation and amendments to crack down on this. If this bill works as it should work, then there should be no illegals in the country seeking sanctuary in a sanctuary city. My legislation to prohibit the practice of sanctuary cities, in my view, should be accepted by consensus. If the authors of this bill believe it is a solution to our broken immigration system, then there should be no need for a city to say we are going to take in people who are not here legally because, by definition under this bill, we will have said the system is fixed. Under my amendment, these jurisdictions would be denied State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funds if they insist on continuing to be sanctuary cities. We would deny, under my amendment, law enforcement grants from the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice for the continuation of so-called sanctuary cities. My amendment would also encourage information-sharing by law enforcement officials and stipulate that individuals who violate the immigration law should be included in the National Crime Information Center database. Why would that be the least bit controversial? It would also ensure States have access to Federal technology that is helpful in identifying immigrants who are not here by permission and who are deported. I would say to my colleagues, any bill that comes out of the House of Representatives will almost surely have a sanctuary cities provision. We need a vote on this Senate floor so our constituents back home and our individual States can know where we stand on this issue. I would again emphasize if we believe the law will work, if we believe this new plan will fix the broken system, then there should be no need for any jurisdiction to call itself a sanctuary city. Secondly, I have a separate amendment that would double penalty fees. It would double from $1,000 to $2,000 the fee illegal immigrants must pay at various steps of the process. We all know $1,000 amounts to far less than what is often paid to so-called coyotes who smuggle people across the border. Penalties are supposed to hold people accountable for breaking the law and not serve as merely an inconvenience. I have a second amendment that would increase the penalty in the legislation from $1,000 to $2000. I have a third amendment that would require the Secretary to adjust these statutory fees and penalties for inflation, index them for inflation. What could be simpler than that? A $1,000 penalty in 2013 might not amount to the same degree of penalty in 2015 or 2019. We index many of our amounts and figures under statute according to inflation. My third amendment would simply allow for annual inflation adjustment. Fourthly, I have an amendment that would strike the ability of illegal immigrants to apply for provisional legal status if they have previously filed a frivolous application for asylum, one that has been determined by the authorities to be frivolous. By law those who have knowingly filed a frivolous application, for example, containing statements that are deliberately fabricated, or responses that are deliberately fabricated, should be permanently barred from receiving any benefit under the new act. Another amendment I have would expedite removal proceedings of illegal immigrants with serious criminal offenses. What could be simpler and more straightforward than that. It would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to initiate expedited removal proceedings against those who are deemed ineligible for provisional legal status, for example, by law, because they would belong to a gang or they have committed an aggravated felony, committed an offense against a child or a domestic violence offense. It would seem to me this sort of an amendment should be the sort of amendment the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, was speaking about only a few moments ago that should be accepted by consensus through a voice vote. Finally, I have an amendment to ensure that those found ineligible have their provisional legal status revoked. If an application is submitted and the duly constituted authorities under this new act determine the individual is not entitled to the relief requested, then provisional legal status should be revoked. For example, this would be if he or she is found to be ineligible, if he or she used fraudulent documentation or did not fulfill the continuous physical presence requirement of the bill, then that status is denied and the individual should then have conditional status revoked. I conclude by saying I appreciate the good-faith effort that has been made by the leadership on both sides of the aisle, by the leadership of the committee, and by people acting ad hoc as a self-appointed group of 8 or group of 10. We need to make it clear that any agreement announced with great fanfare this afternoon, or perhaps this weekend, is not the end of it. We have a lot of time left for excellent ideas to improve this bill, to bring it around to the point where people such as myself could vote for it, where people such as my constituents back home can feel that it is, in fact, a solution to a broken system, and we can forward this legislation on to the House of Representatives with a national consensus behind it. No great changes have been made in the Congress to broad policy disagreements without bipartisan consensus. I hope that amendments such as the six I have described, particularly my amendment with regard to sanctuary cities, would be adopted so we can move toward a consensus that we do not have at this point. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise to continue this debate on one of the great issues of our time, immigration, the bill that is before us. I thank the ranking member Mr. Grassley for allowing me to jump ahead of him in the schedule. I have a markup in the Armed Services Committee, and I need to get back. Let me say that in the next few weeks the Senate will have an opportunity to discuss, clearly and resolutely, America's broken immigration system. Part of that means seeking policy solutions that will not only make our country stronger for decades to come but make our country safer going forward. Partisan politics should not derail the pursuit of an honest and good-faith approach to solving national problems, problems such as our broken immigration system. Americans are right to demand better from their elected representatives, and there is merit in allowing this legislation to proceed in an open and transparent manner. In doing so, we rightfully recognize that there is widespread and bipartisan consensus for lasting immigration reform. That consensus exists in this Chamber and it exists across the country. For that reason yesterday I voted in favor of cloture on this bill and in favor of the motion to proceed. So here we are, about to consider, I hope, amendments that would improve the bill. We cannot ignore the reality that there are 11 million undocumented immigrants in America today. We cannot dismiss the economic implications of a failed immigration system. Disagreements are part of the legislative process, and we will have disagreements over the next several weeks on this issue. I do not expect our work on this issue to be seamless, I do not expect it to be easy, but robust debate has always been central to the Senate's function and purpose. We would do well to uphold that proud tradition now. Lasting and effective immigration reform requires a willingness to work on issues collaboratively and constructively--and in a bipartisan manner. An issue of this magnitude that touches on so many aspects of our society and economy cannot be done on a solely partisan basis. We must have a wide, large, bipartisan majority for anything that moves out of this body and down to the House. I am a long-time supporter of reinforcing our borders, of increasing the number of Border Patrol agents and using surveillance technology to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing into our country. I support policies that come with enforcement and accountability, where those who have broken the law face consequences for their wrongdoing. I believe measures to strengthen employment verification are important to making sure American jobs are held by American citizens and by those who live and work in our country legally. In my view the immigration bill, prepared by a bipartisan Group of 8 and supported by the Judiciary Committee, is a start but it is lacking in many ways, and I cannot support it in its current form. More should be done to ensure, first and foremost, that our borders are secure. Without this fundamental first step, true reform remains elusive and the problem of illegal immigration will persist. As we proceed with this bill, I look forward to amendments that would implement a stronger border security strategy, interior security protections, and processes for honest employers to assess employee work rights. A responsible way forward must recognize past failures, and we have certainly seen that--past failures, for example, to secure the border and unfulfilled promises for better enforcement. We need to recognize those failures of the past. A comprehensive plan must include mechanisms to track those who unlawfully overstay their visas just as it seeks to remedy gaps in border security. Over the course of the past few weeks, Mississippians have contacted my office and spoken to me directly regarding their concerns about whether the bill will offer amnesty; whether it will offer Federal benefits to illegal immigrants. Let me be clear that I will oppose legislation if it grants legal status without penalties or if it issues welfare benefits to individuals who have broken the law to live and work in this country. These individuals should not go to the front of the line, ahead of those who have patiently waited to become Americans. We are a country of immigrants. Throughout American history people of all nations have recognized the promise of opportunity and freedom in the United States. Legal immigration has sustained and advanced our communities in a positive way. Whether our immigration system is going forward in a way that benefits our society depends on how we act in the coming weeks. I hope we can do so thoughtfully and meaningfully as we seek solutions to a flawed system. This bill in its current form does not contain the reforms we need. Efforts to amend it should be seen as an opportunity to get a bipartisan consensus of Senators to a ``yes'' vote. They should not be seen as poison pills or as efforts to hurt the process. This bill serves as a vehicle for continued discussion about the future of U.S. immigration policy. We should welcome this debate, and I do welcome this debate. We should confront the challenges of our day in a way that is deliberative and principled. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, it is important for the United States to continue its efforts to promote a close relationship with Puerto Rico and its citizens. That includes supporting a fair and democratic process for Puerto Ricans on the perennial and controversial issue of statehood. I commend Puerto Rico's new Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla on his work to tackle the current challenges facing the island, particularly on the economic front. Congress has long supported reciprocity between Puerto Rico and the United States, with very positive results. When the Puerto Rican economy flourishes, trade with the United States increases, helping promote job creation here at home. I am disappointed the most recent budget proposal submitted to Congress by the White House recommends $2.5 million in fiscal year 2014 to conduct yet another referendum on Puerto Rico's political status. Allocating U.S. taxpayer dollars for this purpose is wasteful and unnecessary, since a plebiscite was just held in Puerto Rico last November on this very question. The vote on Election Day specifically called for Puerto Ricans to express their views on the island's political status. Its backers sought to show that popular support exists for turning Puerto Rico into a State. But it is widely acknowledged that the ballot was not developed in a fair and inclusive manner. It instead presented statehood alternatives with a predetermined result in mind, to force Puerto Ricans toward an option they have rejected time and again, and to stack the deck in favor of statehood. The first part of the ballot asked whether or not Puerto Rican voters wanted to continue their territorial status. The second portion then provided three different non-territorial alternatives: statehood, sovereign free associated state, or independence. Keeping the island's current Commonwealth status was not even listed as an option in the second round. As expected, a slim majority--nearly 51.7 percent of the 1.9 million who voted--opted for changing the current status. However, in response to the second question, 834,191 voters chose statehood, 498,604 left the second question blank, 454,768 selected sovereign free associated state, and 74,895 favored independence. Any way you slice it, 1,028,267--or nearly 55 percent--of the Puerto Ricans who traveled to the polls voted for options other than statehood. As Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, the first woman of Puerto Rican heritage elected to the United States House of Representatives, correctly pointed out: ``Casting a blank ballot is part of traditional form of objecting to an unfair process in Puerto Rican political history.'' In accordance with this tradition, the Commonwealth Party in Puerto Rico adopted a resolution calling on Puerto Rican voters to protest last November's plebiscite process by casting blank ballots. When you include the nearly half a million voters who left the second question on the ballot blank, it is clear--despite the claims of some statehood proponents--that a majority of voters do not support statehood for Puerto Rico. In fact, more than 1 million, or nearly 55 percent, of Puerto Rican voters who participated in the plebiscite actually demonstrated support for something other than statehood. A concurrent resolution was adopted last week by the legislature in Puerto Rico stating that the plebiscite on November 6, 2012, portrayed a false majority in favor of statehood and prevented an accurate vote on the option of Commonwealth status. I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the text of that resolution. The Senate and The House of Representatives of Puerto Rico

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this resolution because Iran represents the single largest threat to freedom and peace in the Middle East. Our State Department classifies Iran as the most active state sponsor of terrorism, period. A troubling news account from Reuters released just yesterday reveals a United Nations nuclear agency report due this week is ``expected to show Iran further increasing its capacity to produce material that . . . could eventually be put to developing atomic bombs.'' The clock is ticking. This is a moment to be resolute. The forceful words we just heard from the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and previously from the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona, demonstrate our firm bipartisan position on this matter. The world can ill afford the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. That is why it is incumbent on the Congress and the President to take every action necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring a weapon of mass destruction. All options must be on the table, as the resolution indicates, to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. Israel is a nation under siege by terrorist organizations, many of which are being directly funded by the Iranian regime. The United States must not waiver in its support and obligation to our friends in Israel. I am pleased this resolution reaffirms our commitment to Israel, particularly in the event Israel is forced to exercise its sovereign right to defend itself. I urge my colleagues to take a firm stand against nuclear proliferation by voting for strengthened sanctions and for the adoption of this resolution. I yield back whatever time I may have remaining.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ian Mulcahy, Emily Smail, and Donald Rausch, legislative fellows on my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise this evening to discuss a disturbing pattern of behavior, a culture of intimidation that continues to emerge from the Obama administration. For the past few days, headline after headline has revealed one new controversy after another. In every case Americans are right to wonder what kind of leadership led to this and just how far this culture of intimidation goes. Americans need to learn the extent to which this misconduct has occurred by the heavy hand of the executive branch of government. The first indication was on Friday of last week, and it involved the Internal Revenue Service issuing an apology for targeting conservative groups seeking nonprofit status and treating conservative groups more harshly than other groups. These groups were excessively scrutinized if they used the words ``patriot'' or ``tea party.'' As we would later learn from the inspector general report, not only were these groups targeted, but senior officials knew about it for at least a year and made no report to the Congress. It has also been confirmed that confidential information about some of these groups was leaked to the liberal nonprofit group ProPublica. The whole situation disgraces the basic constitutional freedoms to which every American is entitled. It is appalling that Americans have been deliberately targeted for IRS scrutiny based on their political beliefs or affiliations. No American should fear arbitrary government harassment simply because of the expression of his or her views. The administration needs to be held accountable for its failure to protect Americans. An apology is not sufficient in this instance. An internal inspector general investigation talking about mismanagement errors will not suffice in this instance. The acknowledgement that mistakes were made and that changes, indeed, need to be made will not, in and of itself, rebuild the public trust that has been broken. Particularly troubling is that the IRS is not the only agency in which these types of abuses have occurred. Americans are also right to be outraged by the news that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has been fundraising among the industry people she regulates on behalf of the President's health care law. As reported in the Washington Post on May 10, Secretary Sebelius ``has gone, hat in hand, to health industry officials, asking them to make large financial donations.'' Presumably these donations are being collected in order to pay for an advertising campaign in the media, including television. Further investigation is necessary to determine the extent to which these solicitations constitute a conflict of interest. It is curious that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is seeking support from the health industry now when these affected parties were largely ignored or in many cases intimidated during the debate on the President's health care law. Meanwhile, questions remain about the administration's handling of the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. During his recent news conference, the President tried to deflect serious concerns about altered talking points by calling it a political ``sideshow.'' I do not think the American people are going to be convinced that it is a sideshow. The real sideshow is the President's attempt to distract from an unraveling narrative that began with the administration wrongly casting blame on an inflammatory YouTube video. Subsequent testimony from State Department whistleblowers, who came forward despite administration pressure, has only expanded the controversy surrounding the administration's apparent misrepresentation of the terrorist attack to the American people. Let's not forget that it was President Obama who promised, after he took office, that his administration would be ``the most open and transparent in history.'' It is increasingly clear that the President's rhetoric does not match this reality. Whether these scandals continue to make mainstream news, our questions and inquiries will not stop until we get answers. The administration's conflicting storylines and blame games are inexcusable in the wake of serious allegations. In America, those in power are not above the law, and those responsible must be held accountable. A Member of this body on the other side of the aisle asked publicly on the radio this morning: What does it take to get fired in this town? A good question coming from the other side of the aisle. What we are continuing to see is a culture of intimidation, a pattern of big-government heavyhandedness and overreach by the administration. What is lacking is credibility and integrity from those elected to serve. Each scandal is distinct in its grievances but not isolated in its impact. A New Yorker article published yesterday by Amy Davidson noted ``the Obama Administration's strange belief that if it can just find the right words, that reality will comply and bend to meet it--that its challenges are so extraordinary that the use of any exceptions built into normal processes should be regarded as unexceptional.'' Americans deserve direct, straightforward answers, and they deserve the facts. They deserve to know why the IRS deliberately targeted conservative groups and gave liberal groups a pass, why Secretary Sebelius solicited the health care industry to help implement ObamaCare, and why the administration downplayed the atrocities in Benghazi and pressured fact witnesses to stay silent. It time for the President and his inner circle to provide a full explanation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Division. Mr. President, the Chair accepted the amendment. If we are going to start enforcing this, I will marshal my forces and we will learn to yell louder. But the Chair accepted my amendment.

Mr. WICKER. This amendment simply puts us back where we were several years ago, at a 60-vote point of order for unfunded mandates. Washington should not use extensive unfunded mandates to shove the weight of irresponsible government growth down to State and local governments. The threshold now is 51 votes to wave a point of order on unfunded mandates. This amendment would simply put it back the way it used to be in the law to 60 votes. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Sessions for his leadership. I come here today as a new member of the Budget Committee, fresh from the committee process with some observations and some disappointments, but principally today I come to the floor to talk about the urgent need for budget reform and a lasting budget that will put us on a path to fiscal responsibility. I suppose we should be delighted at least to be on the floor with a budget. After 4 years of trillion-dollar deficits and after 4 years without a budget, at least we have an opportunity as representatives of the American people to debate the financial future of this country and an opportunity to discuss putting our Nation on a trajectory away from constant debt and uncertainty and on a path toward security and prosperity, on a path that is designed to create better job opportunities for the people we represent. Unfortunately, the budget our friends on the other side of the aisle unveiled last week ignores the spending problem that continues to drive the Federal debt skyward. Don't take the word of one Senator from Mississippi on that. Let's listen to the words of the Washington Post editorial board. Not exactly what one would call a center-right entity, they observed on March 14--and I quote the Washington Post: This document gives voters no reason to believe that Democrats have a viable plan for--or even a responsible public assessment of--the country's long-term fiscal predicament. Those are the words of the Washington Post in utter disappointment about the product we will be debating on the floor for the next several days. Being a member of the Budget Committee and being part of the budget markup process has certainly been revealing to me as a new member of the committee. We were given an opportunity before amendments were offered to ask technical questions--not really to debate but just to ask technical questions of the staff members about exactly what this budget does. We learned from these professionals--when we just asked them the questions, we learned these facts about the Democratic proposal for a budget for the next 10 years: It does not balance at any point during the next decade. Never in the next 10 years would this document bring the Federal budget into balance. Not only that, in propounding further technical questions to the staff, we learned that this budget puts our country on a spending path that never comes into balance. There is no plan for decades and decades to come, as far as the eye can see, for this budget ever to get the Federal Government into balance. Yet it was supported by friends of mine on the other side of the aisle who have certainly given lipservice to the idea not only of a balanced budget but of a balanced budget constitutional amendment. I am going to predict that Democratic Members of this body who come in here and vote for this document will have coauthored a balanced budget constitutional amendment, who have actually voted for or cosponsored a balanced budget constitutional amendment. Yet they will be voting for a document that not only doesn't balance within 10 years but that never, ever comes into balance. Indeed, the document that we will be asked to support and that we are trying to amend grows the Federal Government at 5 percent each year for the entire decade. It raises taxes to the tune of $1.5 trillion over the decade. And this is important for us to realize: It doesn't raise taxes on that rich guy behind the tree who we think can afford it, it raises taxes on the middle class. There is no question about it. We can't get $1.5 trillion out of the American economy without raising taxes on the middle class, and that is exactly what this budget does. So it never comes into balance, but it does raise a ton of taxes right out of the middle-class economy of this country. Now, we will have an amendment process, and there will be a number of amendments, but it will, in essence, give us an opportunity to slow the trajectory of growth of Federal spending. Members of the Senate will be offered an amendment in this process to balance our Federal budget by the year 2023. We will be given an opportunity to debate that and to visit on a plan that would get us there. How does it get us there? By slashing and burning? By tough austerity in the budget? Absolutely not. I think it would surprise many people within the sound of my voice in this city and elsewhere to know that we can grow the size of Federal spending by 3.4 percent each year over the next 10 years and still balance the Federal budget by the year 2023. Let me repeat that. Federal spending is not going to be actually cut under the Republican proposal we will present as an alternative. Federal spending will go up each year by an average of 3.4 percent per year, and still we will be able to balance the budget by the year 2023. So we need not let anyone say that we are having to slash and burn in order to balance the budget. There will be adequate funds to perform the functions of government and still we will be able to balance the budget. I say what so many of my colleagues have said and what our distinguished ranking member from Alabama has said repeatedly: We are not in this business simply to say we balanced the budget. It is not some artificial goal like winning a game. We are in this process of trying to save our country from a mountain of debt in order to create jobs for the American people, in order to grow the economy, rather than growing the size of the Federal Government. We have an opportunity to avoid the fate that is occurring to our allies in Western Europe, even as we speak. I have heard it said recently that: Well, we don't have a debt crisis yet. There are some people who would dispute that. But there are people in this Federal Government, the President included, who say: We don't have a debt crisis at this moment in the Federal Government. I ask this in response: Must we wait for an absolute crisis before we act? We see it coming. We see what has happened to our friends who have overspent in Greece, in Spain, in Portugal, what is happening to our allies, our NATO allies in France. We can avoid this fate. Must we wait until the absolute last moment when people are losing their jobs and we are unable to perform the necessary functions of government? So I say this: We need to act now. We need to act to avoid that crisis which is not that far down the road, and we want to act to grow the economy and create jobs. I wish to mention three issues briefly, and then I notice there are other people who want to speak on this important issue. There is hardly a more important issue that we could be talking about, and thank goodness, for the first time in 4 years, we are going to get that opportunity. Let me mention Social Security, let me mention Medicaid, and then Medicare. Social Security is a wonderful program. My dad relies on Social Security. We are going to keep the commitment that we have made to our senior citizens in the form of Social Security. But everyone agrees the numbers simply do not add up long term. They agree with that much, as President Ronald Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neill agreed to the very same notion back in 1982 and 1983. The numbers were not adding up long term for Social Security and something had to be done and some painful decisions had to be made in the early 1980s. To this day, we thank God for President Ronald Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neill for having the bipartisan courage to do the tough things, to make the tough decisions, and adjust an important program so that Social Security has been saved for the past three decades. We need that kind of statesmanship out of the White House today. Frankly, we need that kind of leadership out of the White House. We are calling for bipartisan action. I think it is worth noting--and it pains me to say this--for the first time in 92 years, we are considering a budget without seeing a plan from the President of the United States, and he announced just last week that he was going to wait in sending us his budget plan. It will be 2 months late by the time it arrives, according to the President's own timetable. In fact, this is the fourth time in 5 years that our President, that my President, has missed this deadline. But we need the same leadership out of this White House that we had out of the Reagan White House three decades ago. We can save Social Security, but it will have to be a little different. We can save Medicaid and make it better. We are going to have an opportunity, as legislators, as policymakers, to give the States an opportunity to design their own Medicaid Program to serve their individual States better. Let's give one State or let's give five volunteer States the opportunity to take a Medicaid block grant and see if they cannot provide better health care to their underserved population with a Medicaid block grant. Let's give them an opportunity to do that. The program does not work very well now. Then the statement was made--and correctly--by some of my Democratic colleagues in the Budget Committee that Medicare is a promise we have made and we ought to keep that promise. I could not agree more. There is not a soul in this Senate who does not want to keep the promise we have made to American workers and to American retired people with regard to Medicare. But the fact remains--and every Senator in this body understands this--Medicare, as it is currently written, cannot last for many more years. The numbers simply do not add up. I am glad the point is being made, and it is being picked up by the mainstream media now. An American worker pays $1 into Medicare and gets $3 back in benefits. A system like that simply cannot be sustained long term. The numbers do not add up. The math does not. It is not that flexible. So we need to--as Reagan and O'Neill did--as responsible custodians of our Federal Government, as responsible trustees of the future of this country, make changes to a program that has served us well. Americans are calling for leadership and bipartisan action now. There are hopeful signs: the National Commission on Social Security Reform, the Gang of 6, the Simpson-Bowles Commission, various bipartisan groups that are trying to forge an honest long-term deal to deal not only with our debt but these three important entitlement programs. I do not see that sort of realism in the document the Democratic majority has provided to us through the Budget Committee. I hope we can amend it. Perhaps we will not in the next few days, but we are going to have to in order to be the trustees of the future, to be the responsible leaders that our voters demand and that the people who come after us would hope we could be. I look forward to the process. I look forward, cheerfully and realistically, to making the case for our position that we could grow the government by just a little less and balance the budget within 10 years, and in so doing we can make a better life, a better future, a better ability for our people to earn a living and support their families. Thank you very much. I look forward to the debate. At this point I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I thank the gentleman. Let's say everything the Senator has said is merely hyperbole or this is a nominee with a very unsettling and naive world view. You can't have it both ways. Either he means what he said over his career or it has all been theater. The President is entitled to make his nomination, but the Senate must uphold its important constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on this nomination. Early on, many friends on the Democratic side of the aisle voiced their very real concerns. Let me ask, Has Chuck Hagel truly answered those concerns? Which Chuck Hagel are we being asked to confirm: the one who shoots from the hip and means what he says or the one who is now willing to say anything to be confirmed? We need a Secretary of Defense who can stand before the world and articulate that America is opposed to a nuclear Iran and rejects a policy of containment. We need a Secretary of Defense who can stand before the world and be clear that the Iranian Government is not a legitimately constituted government. We need a Secretary of Defense who has broad, bipartisan support. Sadly, that Secretary is not Chuck Hagel.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I too rise in opposition to the nomination of Chuck Hagel to lead the Department of Defense. Mr. Hagel is probably going to get his vote, but let me say this to my friend from Delaware. If a Republican President in the future brings a nomination for Defense Secretary to this Senate and he does not get as many as 60 votes, I will ask that Republican President to withdraw that nomination, and I wish this President would do the same. This could have been an easy matter. The selection of the Defense Secretary for President Obama's second term could have been a unifying moment. There were a host of qualified, able candidates, both Republican and Democrat, who could have sailed through the process. The President knew controversy was ahead and decided to name Senator Hagel anyway. There were signals from the right and from the left that Senator Hagel would be a divisive and distracting choice. The Washington Post editorial board gave the President good advice on December 18 by saying: ``Chuck Hagel is not the right choice for defense secretary.'' The differences surrounding Senator Hagel's nomination during the last few weeks stand in stark contrast to the unanimous support for outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Mr. Hagel's nomination is markedly different from the overwhelming confirmation of Senator John Kerry for Secretary of State. With so much at stake in the coming days, this should be a time for consensus and cooperation. A nominee who could draw unequivocal support would have served our defense priorities better--and those of our allies. This confirmation fight occurs against the backdrop of severe across- the-board cuts to America's defense programs that are set to take effect this week unless current policy is changed. The Joint Chiefs of Staff reiterated this disastrous reality at a hearing on February 12. The generals and admirals who testified are some of the most respected in the Pentagon. They are some of the most respected in the world. They made it clear that these cuts, at nearly one-half trillion dollars, threaten America's military readiness and national security. Based on their expertise, we are obliged to believe them. By contrast, Senator Hagel has called the defense budget ``bloated.'' He did not simply say there is some fat we can trim or that there is room for savings, as we all believe. No, he said it was bloated. Which is it? Are the Joint Chiefs of Staff correct or is Chuck Hagel correct? The testimony from Defense officials is clearly at odds with Mr. Hagel's shortsighted assessment. Would Senator Hagel defend a robust defense budget in the face of indiscriminate cuts that could weaken our national security or does he believe sequestration is the answer to what he calls a bloated defense budget? The statement that our national security budget is bloated is only one of many outlandish pronouncements Senator Hagel has used to grab attention rather than give an accurate evaluation of the situation at hand. Senator Hagel has in fact made a career out of speaking against the bipartisan mainstream and taking positions on the fringe of public opinion. Here are a few other examples: Senator Hagel has accused Israel of ``playing games'' and committing ``sickening slaughter'' when it was defending itself from Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. He has said that Israel should not keep the Palestinians ``caged up like animals.'' We never had a Defense Secretary who would have said such a thing. Senator Hagel has said the ``Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here'' and forces Congress to do ``dumb things.'' On Iran, Senator Hagel has stated he is both for and against unilateral sanctions. He wrote to Senator Boxer's office on January 14: I agree that, with Iran's continued rejection of diplomatic overtures, further effective sanctions, both multilateral and unilateral--may be necessary. A week earlier, Senator Hagel told the Lincoln Journal Star that he opposed unilateral sanctions because they ``don't work and they just isolate the United States.'' When speaking about the Iraq war, Senator Hagel has described it as a ``meat grinder,'' a crude characterization that succeeded, once again, in gaining him some additional headlines. Perhaps, in an effort to minimize his inconsistent record, Senator Hagel said during the Armed Services hearing on January 31 that he ``won't be in a policy-making position'' as Defense Secretary. This comment illustrates either naivety or a disturbing abdication of the Defense Secretary's responsibilities, which include well-informed policy decisions that will affect the lives of men and women in uniform. Of course the Secretary of Defense makes policy. During the Armed Services hearing, Senator McCain was correct to try to ascertain what Senator Hagel's feelings are today about the surge in Iraq. A number of people agreed with Senator Hagel at the time but are now willing to admit with hindsight that the surge went better than expected, but not Senator Hagel. Let's not forget that Senator Hagel did not merely oppose the surge. It was not enough to say he had misgivings or doubts. He called it the greatest foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam war. This has been the extreme, outlandish, rhetorical approach of Chuck Hagel throughout his career. People involved in a position of this importance need to be careful about what they say. When one is being interviewed for a book, they should choose words wisely. That is why, during the Armed Services hearing, I asked Senator Hagel about why he told author Aaron David Miller ``the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here'' and that he ``always argued against some of the dumb things they do.'' Let me make this clear. Americans who come to Washington and advocate for Israel do meaningful work to advance a strong, sovereign, and democratic Israel, America's closest ally in the Middle East. Mr. Hagel did not defend his comments at the hearing. Instead, he blamed his statements on a poor choice of words. Congressional actions, such as tough Iran sanctions and greater military cooperation with Israel, are not the products of intimidation. To suggest otherwise challenges the bipartisan judgment of the men and women elected to serve in this Chamber. When questioned by Senator Graham during the hearing, Senator Hagel could not name one person in Congress who had been intimidated or one dumb thing that Congress had done because of the pro-Israel lobby. One or two troubling statements might not be disqualifying when taken alone, but all of the positions taken together paint what I believe is an accurate picture of this nominee. Our troops and allies need to rely on the words of the Secretary of Defense. Changing viewpoints for the purpose of political expediency or to make headlines is not the hallmark of a steadfast leader. Weeks after the process began, two conclusions emerged from the totality of the information that has come to light about Senator Hagel: Either we should disregard everything he has said and stood for as merely hyperbole---- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

Mr. WICKER. May I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute?

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise tonight to pay tribute to Jamie Ellis, a beloved member of my staff who passed away on Tuesday, November 27, at the age of 65. Jamie Ellis served his State and country proudly as a constituent liaison in my office in Tupelo. He handled veterans issues, a role he filled with compassion, ability, and integrity. It was a natural fit. Jamie brought to the position his own background of military service and experience as a volunteer Veterans Service Officer for the local chapter of the Vietnam Veterans of America. He had a deep understanding of the unique circumstances our veterans face, and he worked tirelessly to make their lives better. His help and kindness will not be forgotten. This ability to work well with others was evident throughout Jamie's career, from his years in public service to his success in business. He knew how to lead--a talent that served him well as president of Ellis Brothers Timber and Wonder Wood Products in Mississippi. Before joining my office, he was a valued independent sales agent for Lawson Products in Illinois. Jamie deserved the respect that veterans and others bestowed upon him. He served in the U.S. Air Force from 1966 to 1970, spending nearly 3 years in southeast Asia, including 1 year in Vietnam. He then served in the National Guard. In his home community of Saltillo, Jamie was a 32nd-degree Mason and Shriner and member of the Saltillo First United Methodist Church. Helen Keller once said: The world is moved along not only by the mighty shoves of its heroes, but also by the aggregate of the tiny pushes of each honest worker. Jamie was the true and honest worker Ms. Keller describes, and he was a hero to those he helped. There is no doubt his contributions have made the world a better place than he found it. I am thankful to have known Jamie Ellis and to have had him on my staff. My wife Gayle and I extend our deepest sympathy to his loved ones. To many, Jamie was a fellow veteran and a good friend. To his family, he was a devoted son, husband, father, brother, and grandfather. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family, especially his wife Judy of 42 years, and their three children and nine grandchildren. He will be truly missed. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Tennessee would yield to me on this very point.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for making this point. I have an amendment to this bill that I would like to have had heard. It strikes a middle ground between the unlimited per account liability and the $250,000 we have traditionally had. It is a modest compromise as well as an alternative, and it will not be considered because of the very practice my friend from Tennessee has mentioned. It is not only our amendments--I just came in on the tail end of the Senator's remarks--but there are Democratic amendments which deserve to be heard on this bill. Senator Udall has an amendment--he is a member of the majority party--and it is a well-reasoned amendment that deserves to be considered and heard. The distinguished majority leader has chosen to fill the amendment tree and offer only his select amendments, and now I am deprived from the ability that I think a representative of several States should have; that is, to bring forth an idea and have it heard. I might not be able to get a majority on it and Senator Udall may not prevail, but we deserve to be heard. This has been the greatest deliberative body in the world--at least that is what I heard before I came over from the House of Representatives--but it has not turned out that way. The majority leader time and time again fills the amendment trees, thereby preventing any of the other 99 Senators from offering amendments. The Congressional Research Service has identified 40 instances in which opportunities for debating and offering amendments had already been limited by the Senate majority leader by filling or partially filling the amendment tree. I have one more point and then I will yield back to my friend from Tennessee. We are going to miss the services and the independence of the distinguished senior Senator from Maine, Ms. Olympia Snowe. I think anyone in this body would have to admit Senator Snowe has been evenhanded, bipartisan, and often nonpartisan. She has objected to this very practice by this very majority leader, and I think it is destructive to the overall process of the Senate. In the specific words of retiring Senator Olympia Snowe: First and foremost, the Senate should have the ability to debate more than the three amendments the majority leader is allowing. It is therefore imperative that Senate deliberations on the Defense bill be conducted without limitations and in a manner that allows for the consideration of all related amendments that Senators may wish to offer. I have been aggrieved that my little amendment is not going to get anymore debate than these few moments right now. I know the Senator from Tennessee feels the same way, and undoubtedly Senator Udall would prefer a vote and debate on his amendment. We can fix the Senate. We can get back to the leadership we had under Mansfield and Mitchell of Maine and Lott of Mississippi and other majority leaders. We can move legislation along but not if we continue this abuse of the process by filling the amendment tree. I will be voting with the distinguished Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Pennsylvania on the point of order because we need to draw a bright red line there. Perhaps we can get on this issue at some other point. I hope the Senate can get back to an orderly debate on matters of substance. I thank my friend, the Senator from Tennessee, for yielding on that point. I yield back.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, in a few moments the distinguished chair of the Finance Committee and the Senator from Utah will commence debate on H.R. 6156, the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012. Because of scheduling concerns, I am speaking on this in morning business, and that will allow time for other Members to speak. I come to the floor today to support this bill. It has a very important twofold purpose: It approves normal trade relations with Russia, and at the same time the legislation insists that the Russian Government adhere to the rule of law. It does so by putting consequences in place for those in Russia who abuse basic human rights. Granting PNTR to Russia is a big win for Americans. If Congress does not act, American workers, including millions employed by small businesses, stand to lose out to foreign competitors as Russia opens its market as a new member of the WTO. Many in my home State of Mississippi and around the country deserve to benefit from increased trade that this new relationship would bring. More jobs and greater economic growth are our potential rewards here in the United States. Last year Mississippi's $55 million in exports to Russia helped support an estimated 170 jobs. Certainly this number needs to grow, and I believe it will under this legislation. Yet in realizing the immense trade potential at hand, we cannot ignore the urgent need to address serious concerns about Russia's appalling human rights record. Most agree that the Jackson-Vanik amendment currently in place is an outdated restriction on trade which could hurt American competitiveness. But repeal alone will not suffice when dealing with a country that continues to protect corrupt officials, and that is what the Russian Government continues to do. The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act is a necessary replacement for Jackson-Vanik. The legislation targets human rights violators by imposing restrictions on their financial activities and travel. It recognizes that the privilege of using America's banking system and acquiring a U.S. visa should be denied to those who disgrace human dignity and justice. Facts need to be retold today about the case of Sergei Magnitsky after whom this legislation is named. Sergei Magnitsky was a lawyer and partner with an American-owned law firm based in Moscow. He was married and had two children. In his investigative work on behalf of the Hermitage Fund, the largest foreign portfolio investor in Russia, Mr. Magnitsky uncovered the largest tax rebate fraud in Russian history. He found that Russian Interior Ministry officers, tax officials, and organized criminals had worked together to steal $230 million in public funds. In 2008 Mr. Magnitsky voluntarily gave sworn testimony against officials from the Interior Ministry, Russian tax departments, and the private criminals whom he discovered were complicit in the fraud. A month later, instead of being commended for doing the right thing, Mr. Magnitsky was arrested in front of his wife and children and placed in pretrial detention. He was held without a trial for 1 year. The Russian Federal Security Service deemed Mr. Magnitsky was a flight risk to prolong his detention, based on false claims that he had a U.K. visa application. While in custody, Mr. Magnitsky was tortured by officials, hoping he would withdraw his testimony, and falsely incriminate himself and his client. Refusing to do so, his conditions and his health worsened. He stayed in an overcrowded cell with no heat, no sunlight, and no toilet. The lights were kept on throughout the night to deprive him of sleep. Mr. Magnitsky lost 40 pounds and suffered from severe pancreatitis and gallstones. Months went by without any access to medical care. Despite hundreds of petitions, requests for medical examination and surgery were denied by Russian Government officials. So were family visits. After his arrest Mr. Magnitsky saw his wife once and never again saw his children. On November 13, 2009, Sergei Magnitsky's condition deteriorated dramatically. Doctors saw him on November 16. He was transferred to a Moscow detention center that had medical facilities and, instead of being treated there immediately, he was placed in an isolation cell, handcuffed, beaten, and subsequently Sergei Magnitsky died. After his death, Russian officials repeatedly denied the facts surrounding his health condition. Requests by his family for an independent autopsy were rejected. Detention center officials said Mr. Magnitsky's abdominal membrane had ruptured and that he died from toxic shock. The official cause of death would blame heart failure. According to the Russian State Investigative Committee, Mr. Magnitsky was not pressured and tortured but died naturally of heart disease. The committee said his death was ``nobody's fault.'' For 3 years not a single person has been prosecuted for Mr. Magnitsky's false arrest, torture, murder, or for the massive fraud that he had the courage to expose. Like many of my colleagues, I continue to have real concerns about the current state of human rights and rule of law in Russia. I have come to the floor on numerous occasions demanding accountability for Russia's rampant extrajudicial offenses. Tragically, Mr. Magnitsky is not the only victim of the country's criminal regime. The cases of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Planton Lebedev, who remain in prison, are also poignant examples of the corruption that pervades the Russian Government. My friend, the junior Senator from Maryland, has shown tremendous leadership on this issue and I commend him for his steadfast dedication to the highest standard of democracy and justice. I have long supported Senator Cardin's efforts to use the Magnitsky Act as a way to protect human rights globally. The Magnitsky Act is a simple straightforward call for justice. It signals to the world that America will uphold its commitment to the protection of human rights and the rule of law. It is a tool that could be extremely powerful in penalizing human rights violators everywhere. Many of us had hoped to achieve a bicameral consensus in applying the Magnitsky Act globally. Although global language is not included in the House bill being considered today, sanctions against human rights violations in Russia and within the Russian Government are still an important victory. It moves us in the right direction. I hope we can work in the next Congress to consider broadening the reach of the Magnitsky Act. Russia is not alone in its human rights abuses and the United States' unwavering stance against corruption should not stop there. PNTR with Russia is an important vehicle for American trade and it should serve as a reminder of our country's role in promoting the advancement of human rights. At the same time, I remain committed to supporting this role as we move forward.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 6 minutes.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to Kyle Parker, a staff member on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe--also known as the Helsinki Commission, which Senator Cardin co-chairs--during Senate consideration of H.R. 6156.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I wonder if I might be able to proceed for 1 minute before we begin the votes.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to breeze in here at the last moment. I would like to speak today about a Department of Defense policy that has an impact on American jobs and is in urgent need of greater transparency. Until recently, this policy picked industry winners and losers. We must ensure that the Federal Government's adopted standards for green buildings are consensus-based, fair, and established by sound science. Before last year's Defense authorization bill was signed into law, the Department of Defense exclusively recognized or showed preference for a single green building rating system. The U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design--or LEED--became DOD's adopted benchmark for green building. This raised concerns, primarily because LEED standards are not developed in a transparent manner and do not allow meaningful input from all affected stakeholders. For example, for some reason LEED standards are unreasonably biased against American timber. Obtaining the highest LEED certifications often requires green buildings to exclude domestic wood. Instead, the use of bamboo, often shipped from overseas, is favored over more cost-efficient local timber. The next version of LEED threatens to eliminate the use of other approved materials and proven products that are currently used to achieve true energy savings. It makes sense to anticipate that a blanket adoption of LEED by the Department of Defense would have a significant impact on American industry. To put the scope of DOD's green building policies into perspective: DOD has more than 500,000 facilities, covering more than 2 billion square feet. If we combined all of the nearly 5,000 Wal-Mart buildings in America, it would make up about a third of DOD's real estate. That is why I fought for language--included in the 2012 Defense authorization conference report--requiring DOD to conduct a cost- benefit analysis of various green building rating systems. Last year's Defense authorization conference report prohibited the use of funds to implement LEED standards. This year, the Armed Services Committee accepted language I offered to extend the prohibition of funds for LEED until 6 months after the cost-benefit study is reported to Congress. I look forward to the findings of this study but remain concerned about DOD's adoption of any green building standards that are not transparent and consensus-based. I have yet another amendment that would direct DOD to utilize green building standards that are driven by consensus as determined by the American Nationa Standards nstitute, and include sufficient input from all affected stakeholders. My amendment also would support green building standards that consider the full environmental benefits provided by a building material throughout its lifetime. Life Cycle Assessment is a science- based approach used to measure these benefits. Together, I believe these provisions would create a level playing field for materials to compete for green building and energy savings in DOD construction. The Federal Government should be in the business of choosing winners and losers, Adoption of LEED only--or/any other green building standard not developed by consensus--would discriminate against American-made products, reduce transparency, impact jobs, and ultimately undermine energy savings and sustainability sought using taxpayer dollars. Although I am going to withhold my amendment, I will continue to closely monitor this issue to ensure that fair competition is part of DOD's construction of green buildings. I want to thank the chairman, ranking member, and all the members of the committee. In conclusion, as we have learned, there is more than one way to have green building standards. The Defense Department has tilted toward the LEED standards in the past. I think we have authorized now a scientific analysis of other methods that is proceeding apace. I had planned to offer yet another amendment which would be withdrawn directing that the Department of Defense utilize green building standards that are driven by consensus as determined by the American National Standards Institute. As I say, I am withholding that amendment. I do appreciate the language that is in the bill now, and I think we will end up with green building standards that save energy and serve the purposes of national defense and do not tilt toward one industry over the other. I thank the Presiding Officer for her indulgence, I thank my colleagues on the committee, and I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3262, as Modified

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Well, I appreciate the Senator's sharing his time with me. Mr. President, I guess in a moment, Senator Sessions will yield the floor and we will go dark, subject to the call of the Chair for a vote at midnight, and then we will sort of slink out of town, with no appropriations bills, no defense bill, and no dealing with sequestration, which means meat axe cuts to defense and other programs. But we will have gotten away under cover of darkness to face the voters, and in this country they are the ultimate arbiters. I appreciate this opportunity to stand on the floor with a statesman such as my friend from Alabama and to thank him for his leadership on budget issues and to thank him for coming here and telling the truth to our colleagues and to the American people.