Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. If I could jump in on the issue of Medicare because I have a quote here from President Obama, July 29, 2009: ``Medicare is a government program, but do not worry, I am not going touch it.'' As a matter of fact, only months later he signed into law Obamacare, which takes $\1/2\ trillion from Medicare. And it touches on the very issue the Senator from Kansas was referring to with regard to Medicare access for people in rural Kansas.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, we were honored to have Senator Shaheen join us. I know there are others who would like to be here today. We are here to tell the sordid facts of this case. But we are also here because change can occur. If this were completely hopeless, what would be the point of this exercise? Change occurred in Eastern Europe. I must admit there was a time in my younger days when I doubted it would ever occur. My hat is off to the intrepid members of the Public Oversight Commission who had the courage to issue a report critical of their government to the Russian President's Human Rights Council. So voices are being heard. There is a thread of truth coming from the almost Iron Curtain of authoritarianism that we have reverted to in Russia. The Senator from New Hampshire mentioned other organizations in Russia. I am glad she has had those letters printed in the Record. I also point out I have to applaud the international reaction. In December, the European Parliament passed a resolution recommending an EU-wide travel ban and asset freeze for officials tied to Mr. Magnitsky's death. We need to act as a Senate and as a Congress. I am calling on every Senator within the sound of my voice today, every legislative director dealing with defense and foreign policy issues, once again to look at the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act. I will tell my friend from New Hampshire that the number is now up to 30, we learned on the floor today from Senator Cardin, so we have 30 Senators involved. We ought to have a majority of Senators before the end of this day, if people would just take the time to look. I join her in congratulating the Foreign Relations Committee on bringing further light to this issue. I thank the State Department, as she said. I will simply conclude my portion by saying recent events make it even more important that the Foreign Relations Committee and that this Senate take up and pass this legislation. I urge all my colleagues to consider joining us on this legislation.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I expect to be joined in a moment by my colleague and good friend, Senator Cardin, and he and I and perhaps others will be talking about the deteriorating situation in Russia with regard to human rights and the rule of law. I came to the floor in November to speak about the deteriorating situation. I spoke about the wrongful imprisonment and tragic death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky. Mr. President, let me state that at this point I will be happy to yield to my colleague from Maryland to actually kick off this discussion. I think that was the agreed-upon order, and staff believed I would have a few moments. But I would be glad to defer to my friend.

Mr. WICKER. I thank my colleague from Maryland. And yes, indeed, there are other cases of human rights violations, not the least of which I have highlighted time and again on this Senate floor--being the cases of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev. Each is an appalling story such as the one Senator Cardin pointed out with regard to Mr. Magnitsky, a story about the corruption within the Russian Government itself. My colleagues and I will continue to speak out about these cases in the hope that attention will inspire change. I look forward to the day when the focus of a floor statement can be about the progress we have made with Russia. This is something to which my colleague and I dearly look forward. We look forward to the day when Russia begins to uphold democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Unfortunately, today is not the day. In recent months, an overwhelming number of headlines out of Russia focus on the Russian spring. Opposition groups, citizens, and, in many cases, the mainstream media have reacted to moves by the Russian regime they view as no longer acceptable. On September 24 of last year, President Medvedev struck a deal that would clear the way for his predecessor, Vladimir Putin, to run next month for a third Presidential term. As the Wall Street Journal noted in an opinion piece last December: Even the most thick-skinned citizens saw that turning the Presidency into the object of a private swap made a mockery of the Constitution. Russia's fraudulent parliamentary elections in December further deepened the political crisis and affirmed the erosion of democracy. Secretary Clinton--our Secretary of State--called them neither free nor fair. So this is a bipartisan denunciation of the process. Observers have claimed that 12 to 15 percent of the votes were falsified in favor of the United Russia Party. According to most analysts, improvement is not expected in the upcoming Presidential election this March. But these corrupt actions have not been ignored. On December 10, more than 60,000 Russians took to the streets of Moscow in protest. Similarly, on February 4, some 120,000 citizens from across the political spectrum braved below-zero weather during a prodemocracy march in central Moscow. Their demands were clear: Release political prisoners such as Khodorkovsky and Lebedev. Allow opposition parties to register. Hold free and fair elections. And pledge not to give a single vote to Putin on March 4. Similar rallies were held in small towns across Russia. We can be glad for the call for reform and we are glad it is growing louder. According to a February poll by Russia's independent Levada Center, 43 percent of Russians now support prodemocracy protests. Additional protests are already scheduled for later this month. Specifically let me once again underscore the horrific facts about Sergei Magnitsky, because they need to be heard, and perhaps some of our colleagues were not listening the first time. In the midst of this public outcry and demand for democratic process, the news out of Russia with regard to Mr. Magnitsky is almost unbelievable. Last week, it was revealed that the police in Russia plan to retry the tax evasion case of the late Sergei Magnitsky. As many of my colleagues are aware, Mr. Magnitsky is already dead. He died in Russian detention more than 2 years ago. He was a lawyer and a partner in an American-owned law firm based in Moscow. He was married, with two children, as my friend has said. His clients included the Hermitage Fund, which is the largest foreign portfolio investor in Russia. Through his investigative work on behalf of Hermitage, Mr. Magnitsky discovered that Russian Interior Ministry officers, tax officials, and organized criminals worked together to steal $230 million in public funds, orchestrating the largest tax rebate fraud in the history of the Russian Republic. In 2008, Mr. Magnitsky voluntarily gave sworn testimony against officials from the Interior Ministry Russian tax department and the private criminals whom he found had perpetrated the fraud. A month later, an arrest was made--and the person arrested was Mr. Magnitsky himself. He was placed in pretrial detention and held without trial for 12 months. While in custody, he was pressured and tortured by Russian officials, hoping he would withdraw his testimony and falsely incriminate himself and his client. But he refused to do so, and his condition worsened and his health worsened. He spent months without medical care. Requests for medical examination and surgery were denied by Russian government officials. On November 13, 2009, Mr. Magnitsky's condition deteriorated dramatically. Doctors saw him on November 16, when he was transferred to a Moscow detention center that actually had medical facilities. Yet, instead of being treated at those facilities immediately, he was placed in an isolation cell, handcuffed, and beaten until he died. In the months following his death, Russian officials repeatedly denied facts concerning his health condition. The Russian state investigative committee claimed that Magnitsky was not pressured or tortured, but died naturally of heart disease, and his death was nobody's fault. This is from the Russian Government. Since Mr. Magnitsky's death, two subsequent reviews have helped clarify some of the facts. In late December of 2009, the Moscow Public Oversight Commission, an independent watchdog mandated under Russian law to monitor human rights, issued its conclusions on this case. This independent Russian oversight commission stated that in detention, Magnitsky had been subjected to torture, physical and psychological pressure; that he was denied medical care; and that his right to life had been violated by the Russian state. The conclusions were sent to the Russian General Prosecutor's Office, the Russian State Investigative Committee, the Russian Ministry of Justice, and the Presidential Commission. None of these agencies has responded to the report's conclusions. More recently, a second finding was issued by the Russian President's Human Rights Council. It issued its independent expert findings on the case. The report found that Magnitsky was arrested on trumped-up charges--yet, they are being brought forward again after his unfortunate death--in breach of Russian law and in breach of the European human rights convention, that his prosecution was unlawful, that he was systemically denied medical care, that he was beaten in custody which was the proximate cause of his death, that his medical records were falsified, and that there is an ongoing coverup and resistance by all government bodies to investigate. Senator Cardin and I and Senator McCain and others have no choice but to continue coming to this floor, to continue using every forum we can possibly use to bring these facts to light. I have taken quite a bit of our time with my prepared statement, so I yield back to my friend from Maryland as to any other thoughts he might have. I want to commend his leadership with regard to the legislation. Do I understand now that we have some 30 cosponsors?

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I came to the floor previously to speak about President Obama's unconstitutional appointments of Richard Cordray as Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and of three new members to the National Labor Relations Board. I spoke about why this blatant overstep of executive authority violates the President's right to make recess appointments under article II, section 2 of the Constitution. I described its unequivocal reversal of years of precedent which the Obama Justice Department's Office of Legal Council has since defended, essentially stating that pro forma sessions no longer matter. This issue is far from over. We cannot allow it simply to go away and the illegal appointments must eventually be set aside. The 23-page Justice Department opinion, written by Assistant Attorney General Virginia A. Seitz, wrongly advises that, despite the convening of pro forma sessions, the President ``has discretion to conclude that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advise-and-consent function and to exercise his power to make recess appointments.'' Under this misguided opinion, the Obama administration is suggesting that the executive branch--not Congress--can determine when the legislative branch is in session. The egregious overreach undermines the checks and balances at the very heart of our Constitution. I am deeply concerned that this presumptuous action by the President poses profound and dangerous implications. As others have suggested, President Obama's abuse of his recess appointment power could lead to unilateral ``recess'' appointments anytime, such as during lunch or in the middle of the night. This is not that far fetched. As I said before, it is my hope that both parties will rise to defend the separated powers our Founders put in place to prevent tyranny and the misuse of authority. It is worth repeating that the controversy surrounding the President's non-recess appointments has nothing to do with the personal character of Mr. Cordray or of those named to the National Labor Relations Board. Nor is the debate over appointments when the Senate is in recess. What the President has done transcends party issues and ideological divides. A day after the appointments were made, former attorney general Edwin Meese III and former Office of Legal Counsel lawyer Todd Gaziano wrote in the Washington Post that President Obama's move is ``a constitutional abuse of a high order.'' It challenges 225 years of executive practice. The Constitution is very clear in its delegation of powers. It explicitly grants the Senate the exclusive responsibility to give ``advice and consent'' on treaties and nominations. It endows the President with the right to fill vacancies when the Senate is not in session--a provision conceived by the Framers as a way to keep the government operational when the ability of Senators to communicate with the executive branch and travel back to the Capitol took much longer than today. Of course, it is disappointing that President Obama has dismissed the will of the Senate, which rejected Mr. Cordray's nomination in December. But never before has a President assumed the authority to issue recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess. In doing so, the President is violating the Constitution plain and simple, and invalidating the legitimacy of his appointees. It stands to reason that any decisions of the CFPB or NLRB will be subject to the same shroud of unconstitutionality and legal contest. The Constitution and nearly a century of legal opinion provide a solid basis for determining the parameters of what qualifies as a legislative ``recess,'' which is required for the President to invoke his appointment privileges. Under Article section 5, clause 4 of the Constitution, the House of Representatives must grant its consent in order for the Senate to adjourn longer than 3 days. The Senate must do the same for the House. It is an undisputed fact that the House of Representatives did not give this chamber that consent and, in keeping with the Constitution, this Senate did not adjourn for more than 3 days. The President's claim that a brief adjournment can be called a ``recess'' goes against 90 years of legal opinion. In 1921, President Harding's Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty had this to say about what defines a recess: ``[N]o one, I venture to say, would for a moment contend that the Senate is not in session when an adjournment [of two days] is taken. Nor do I think an adjournment for 5 or even 10 days can be said to constitute the recess intended by the Constitution.'' Since then, Attorneys General and Presidents of both parties have agreed that at least 10 days should pass before a recess is acknowledged. And yet, as we are aware, there were not 10 days of adjournment when President Obama made his four appointments. We were holding pro forma sessions--proceeding just as the Senate did in 2007, when Majority Leader Reid wanted to block President Bush from making recess appointments--and succeeded in doing so. As Edwin Meese and Todd Gaziano acknowledged in their op-ed, ``Reid was right, whether or not his tactics were justified.'' Michael McConnell, a former Federal judge and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, came to the same conclusion. Last month, he wrote in the Wall Street Journal: Several years ago--under the leadership of Harry Reid and with the vote of then-Sen. Obama--the Senate adopted a practice of holding pro forma sessions every three days during its holidays with the expressed purpose of preventing President George W. Bush from making recess appointments during intrasession adjournments. This administration must think the rules made to hamstring President Bush do not apply to President Obama. But an essential bedrock of any functioning democratic republic is that the same rules apply regardless of who holds office. It is appalling that the Obama administration would call into question the entire legitimacy of pro forma sessions when, less than two weeks before the appointments, the President signed into law the payroll tax extension that the Senate had passed in such a session. What makes the business conducted during the pro forma session on Dec. 23 any different from the pro forma sessions that came just days after? Based on this case, it appears the validity of a Senate session is subject to the President's whim. He signs legislation passed in one pro forma session. He concludes that another pro forma session did not exist at all. In the same op-ed to the Washington Post, Edwin Meese and Todd Gaziano concluded: If Congress does not resist, the injury is not just to its branch but ultimately to the people. [And that is what is important.] James Madison made clear that the separation of powers was not to protect government officials' power for their sake but as a vital check on behalf of individual liberty. Indeed, the forefathers of this country were candid about the crucial link between the separation of powers and freedom itself. As Madison wrote in essay No. 48 of The Federalist: It is agreed on all sides, that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it. As elected public servants, we are bound by our oath of office to uphold and preserve the principles of the Constitution. To do that, we must guard the sanctity of the decisions made and privileges held by this chamber. Our government's separation of powers is not an antiquated idea but a timeless safeguard to liberty. In 1985, Sen. Byrd, the Democratic Majority Leader from West Virginia, wrote in a letter to President Reagan: Recess appointments should be limited to circumstances when the Senate, by reason of a protracted recess, is incapable of confirming a vitally needed public officer. Any other interpretation of the Recess Appointments clause could be seen as a deliberate effort to circumvent the Constitutional responsibility of the Senate to advise and consent to such appointments. Where are the Robert Byrds today? Those who served before us provided precedent and wisdom to address our problems today. They defended the constitutional duties we are now entrusted to protect. Is there not one Democratic Senator who will step forward to defend the constitutional principle of separation of powers? The President has made no secret of his contempt for Congress in recent months. His campaign rhetoric is heavy with ``do-nothing'' accusations. The President is certainly free to engage in election-year hyperbole. But he is not free to overstep the constitutional limits of his office. I can think of a number of other priorities demanding our undivided attention right now--fixing the economy and putting Americans back to work are top among them. Yet in order to address these challenges, we need a working relationship between the legislative and executive branches. The President's power grab undermines the very constitutional foundation of this relationship. I urge Members from both sides of the aisle to call for President Obama to rescind these appointments. Regardless of our party allegiances, we are united by a pledge to serve the American people. That is what motivated Robert Byrd earlier, and it is what ought to motivate us today. Keeping that promise means standing for the sanctity of our country's founding document and the integrity of this institution. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, are we in morning business or do I have to ask consent to speak as in morning business?

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I expect that a resolution authorizing National Crime Victims' Rights Week will be adopted unanimously by the Senate in a few moments. I wanted to come to the floor today and reaffirm my support for the rights and needs of survivors of crime. I also wanted to express my gratitude to the dedicated advocates of crime victims as well as the health and law enforcement professionals who work to fight crime and help its victims recover. Keeping our neighborhoods and communities safe is and will always be a top priority of this country. But close to 20 million Americans are victims of crime each year, and these individuals and their families are confronted with unique and difficult challenges. Acts of crime inflict lasting physical, emotional, and psychological wounds that take time and care to heal. It is important that the necessary resources and services be available to help rebuild the lives of crime survivors. National Crime Victims' Rights Week, which our Nation has commemorated annually for the last 30 years, renews our commitment to those impacted by crime and the ways we can help them move forward. It is a time for remembrance and reflection, a moment to pause and honor victims, advocates, professionals, and volunteers. This year's theme is ambitious but critical: ``Extending the Vision: Reaching Every Victim.'' This calls on each of us to make sure that all victims get the help they need. Too many victims are still unable to receive the protections and services they deserve. Our efforts toward better safety and security now are integral to ensuring the safety and security of future generations. On April 8, 1981, President Ronald Reagan proclaimed the first Crime Victims' Rights Week. As a former prosecutor myself, I remember when the concept of victims' rights was practically unknown as few mechanisms for victim assistance and support even existed. With this first proclamation, President Reagan fulfilled an important and long- awaited call to put the concerns and rights of crime victims on the national agenda. As President Reagan said in the first proclamation in 1981: We need a renewed emphasis on and an enhanced sensitivity to the rights of victims. These rights should be a central concern of those who participate in the criminal justice system, and it is time all of us paid greater heed to the plight of victims. This pioneering vision of President Reagan is one we continue to embrace today. We are blessed to live in a nation of Good Samaritans, and we have achieved impressive strides toward helping crime victims get the services they need. But the task of preventing crime and healing its harmful effects remains a constant battle. Technology, globalization, and new types of criminal behavior have made the challenge before us more complex than ever before. Our fight against crime in the 21st century will take strategic partnerships at the local, State, and national levels. It will rely on supportive, vigilant, and compassionate communities and individuals. Serving these individuals is more than an act of kindness; it helps make all of our homes, neighborhoods, and communities safer and stronger. The resolution I have submitted with Senators Leahy, Schumer, and Grassley and which I expect to be passed today supports the mission and goals of this year's National Crime Victims' Rights Week. I urge my colleagues to continue supporting those who have suffered crimes' effects and a renewed commitment toward reducing crime during this week, which this year will be observed the week of April 22. In closing, we have come a long way since the days when crime victims had few rights and services. Yet it is also true that too many crimes are still committed and too few are reported and that many victims struggle to overcome the lasting effects of crime. I am pleased that National Crime Victims' Rights Week offers us the opportunity each year to highlight the needs of crime survivors, recognize those who help them, and engage the public in the fight for victims' rights. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise because I am deeply concerned about President Obama's unconstitutional overstep of executive authority in the ostensible appointment of Richard Cordray as the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB, and three new members of the National Labor Relations Board. These unilateral, nonrecess appointments are a blatant abuse of power, one that threatens the very legitimacy of the confirmation process and essentially undermines Congress's critical responsibility to restrain the excesses of the executive branch. On January 4, mere weeks after this body had rejected Mr. Cordray's nomination, the President went ahead with his own agenda, disregarding our decision and the fact that the Senate was in pro forma session. Days later, unbelievably, the Obama Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel defended the move, essentially saying that pro forma sessions do not matter anymore; that the President can determine whether the Senate is in recess. Reversing years of precedent, the administration is asserting that the executive branch now has the authority to decide whether the legislative branch is or is not in session. This presumptuous action by the President goes far beyond the limited powers he is granted by our Constitution. It is an affront to the democratic checks and balances established by our Founders, and it constitutes a gross violation of precedents set by those who have come before us. The courts surely will have a say in what the President has done, amounting to an expensive, unnecessary move for pure political reasoning. It was only a matter of days before business groups filed a legal challenge against the President's appointments to the NLRB. To be sure, the President has the right to make recess appointments. This much is unquestioned and is clearly set forth in article II, section 2 of the Constitution, which states the President can ``fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.'' But the power he has to execute this right nevertheless hinges on a condition that all parties have acknowledged: The Senate must be in recess. As it states in article I, section 5, clause 4 of the Constitution: Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than 3 days. The House of Representatives had not formally given our Chamber that consent when the President made his appointments. Moreover, Senators had agreed by unanimous consent to remain in pro forma session. What the President has done triggers a dangerous new precedent. With this overstep, those in the Obama administration have put their political agenda above the Constitution and above the founding principles that established our government's separation of powers. This is no trifling matter. Equally troubling is this power grab could inspire further overreach, setting an unconstitutional model for future administrations. It stands to reason that if the President's judgment, not Congress's, dictates when the Senate is in recess, then what would stop him from making an appointment whenever he chooses? Michael McConnell, a distinguished former Federal judge and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, recently suggested in the Wall Street Journal that the President could, for example, make an appointment overnight or during a lunch break. The parameters of what recess means would be subject to his discretion and his discretion alone. In 2007, majority leader Harry Reid kept the Senate in pro forma session to block nominations by President Bush. He said then that recess appointments are ``an end run around the Senate and the Constitution.'' The majority leader's position then was that pro forma sessions may be used to prevent recess appointments. The Democratic leadership was correct on the law then and they ought to be outraged now over President Obama's disregard of precedent and of the Constitution. Instead, the Democratic leader, who should be protecting the institution that he currently has stewardship of, as well as protecting our Constitution, last week defended the President's appointments on the national news as ``a good move.'' The Constitution does not change based on which party occupies the White House. The same rules should apply no matter who holds office. America was not built upon nor did it rise to greatness because of a single branch of government. Our democracy sits on three separate pillars, and the decisions of the legislative branch are not merely a hurdle for the President to run around. The Constitution endowed the Senate with exclusive authority to give advice and consent on the executive branch and official nominations. Senators upheld their role to advise when we rejected Mr. Cordray's nomination. Many of us made our reasons for the disapproval well known. Last year, 44 Republican Senators sent a letter to the President stating that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau established by the Dodd-Frank Act was in desperate need of reform before a Director could be appointed. This has nothing to do with Mr. Cordray as an individual, but it has everything to do with creating a flawed agency-- an extremely powerful one at that. We pointed out our concerns about how unaccountable this Bureau will be to the American people. We raised a red flag about the extraordinary power it gives to unelected government bureaucrats, particularly the Bureau's Director. It is clear that our advice did not fit with the White House's agenda. This happens in a functioning democracy, and this should be honored. The President has decided not to honor the will of the Senate. He has tried to make an unauthorized appointment that the Members of this body have rejected. In doing so, in circumventing the decisions of elected public servants, his Executive order ultimately diminishes the voice of the American people. In recent months, the President has made it obvious that he wants to rail against a do-nothing Congress. Perhaps it is part of his reelection strategy. Yet, instead of working with Congress to make needed reforms, he fuels an already polarized environment with this move on recess appointments. I say this with all sincerity to the President and to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: There is a time for spin and there is a time to make political points, but politics and theater ought to stop short of trampling on our Constitution. Like each of you, I made an oath to support and defend the Constitution when I took this office. I would not be upholding this pledge if I did not speak out now about what the President has done. Preserving the constitutional sanctity of the decisions of the Senate and the role it serves is one way we support and defend our founding document and the democratic ideals of those who created it. The chair of the Banking Committee has scheduled a hearing on Tuesday, supposedly to hear testimony from Mr. Cordray on his plans for the Consumer Finance Protection Board. Let me be explicitly clear. Richard Cordray is not the duly constituted Director of the CFPB. His purported recess appointment does not comply with the Constitution and is, in fact, a nullity. I will not provide the administration with an appearance of legitimacy in this action, and I will therefore not be in attendance at next Tuesday's hearing. This may seem to be a small step, but I hope it is the first of what will become a debate in this Senate by both parties about the constitutional system of checks and balances. This matter will also go to the courts, and I pray that somewhere in the process the sanctity of our Constitution will be upheld. I approach this matter regretfully and soberly but with apprehension about what the Obama administration is trying to do to our 225-year-old Constitution. I call upon Members of both parties in this Senate to rise in solemn defense of this institution and the constitutional principle of the separation of power. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, we are now as a country squarely in the middle of the Obama economy. It is a period of slow growth, persistently high unemployment, with many potential workers having abandoned the playing field and simply given up looking for work. There is a growing awareness among our countrymen that the policies of President Obama--the policies enacted during the first 2 years of his administration under Democratic supermajorities--have made matters worse. We have legitimate disagreements in this Capitol concerning the solutions to the problems we are experiencing with the Obama economy. My colleagues and I on this side of the aisle would enact aggressive regulatory reform, an expansive energy policy, and we would vastly limit the size and scope of the Federal Government. That is our plan, and it is a plan about which we could have genuine disagreements. What I want to talk to my colleagues about today, though, is what I would suggest is a manufactured dispute over this issue of the extension of the payroll tax. That is an issue on which really there is a wide consensus on the Democratic side of the aisle, over here on the Republican side, and down the hall in the other body. The President said only a few months ago that it is not wise to raise taxes on anyone during a recession. And we certainly are in a recession. In recent weeks, the President has suggested that perhaps he has abandoned this position and changed his mind and that we should perhaps raise taxes on some people even though we are still in a recession. But Republicans have consistently agreed with what the President said earlier: We are in a recession, and this is no time to raise taxes on anyone. This means we shouldn't raise taxes on the working poor. It means we shouldn't raise taxes on employees working on the assembly line or working in the retail sector. It means we should not raise taxes on job creators. We should not raise taxes on investors on whom we depend to provide the capital to create jobs. We shouldn't raise taxes on anybody because we are in a time of recession. Let's put this into a historical context. Last December, at a time when Democrats still had supermajorities over here in the Senate, when Speaker Pelosi was still in charge in the House of Representatives with her majority there, this Congress on a bipartisan basis enacted legislation to keep in place the Bush-era tax cuts, to leave those rates in place for all Americans at whatever income level, and we also on a bipartisan basis enacted a cut in the payroll tax. This is the Social Security tax that all workers pay regardless of income, the so- called FICA taxes that you see on your pay stubs. Last December, that tax cut dropped the payroll tax for employees from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. I supported that. Republicans and Democrats supported that. It is up for renewal, and there is a huge majority of Members of the House and Senate who want to renew that. The distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, however, has suggested that not only do we keep the lower rate of 4.2 percent rather than 6.2 but we actually lower that FICA tax to 3.1 percent. We can have an extension of the current FICA tax rate. Democrats know it, the White House knows it, and the Republican conference knows it. But one problem must be addressed, and I think both parties want to address this: We need to offset the cost to the Social Security trust fund of these lower payroll tax rates. Why do we need to do this? Because when the law says we are really supposed to be taking in 6.2 percent and putting that in the trust fund to make the Social Security Program as solvent as possible and we lower that to 4.2 percent or to less, as the majority leader wants to do, it amounts to a drain on the Social Security system. I think the last thing we want to do with a weak system, which we know can't come out in the end, is to put further pressure on the Social Security trust fund. So both parties have proposed to offset, or pay for, a continuation of the payroll tax cuts. Last week, the White House unveiled a digital clock at the top of its Web site that counts down to the date when the payroll tax cuts will expire at the end of the year. This somehow suggests that someone in this town wants the payroll tax to go back up to 6.2 percent. This is pure political gamesmanship. We can have a bipartisan solution to keep the payroll tax at 4.2 percent, but we must pay for it. The distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, had a proposal last week not only to lower the payroll tax to 3.1 percent but to pay for it by raising taxes on someone else. This violates what the President said several months ago: We don't need to raise taxes on anyone. We can pay for a continuation of this, as Republicans have proposed to do, by offsetting it with smart spending cuts, a freeze in Federal pay, a reduction in the Federal workforce, and means testing of some benefits at the upper income levels. We proposed this last week, but it was shot down by the majority in this body with, to me, a contrived plan to actually lower the payroll tax and shift those taxes to someone else. We are told that this week, just like last week, we are going to have some more political theater. The majority leader will propose once again a tax increase on others so that we can keep this payroll tax cut, and we will propose a side-by-side which is essentially the pay- for plan to keep the tax rate as it is. Both of these will fail because the majority leader intends for them to fail, and essentially we will have wasted 2 weeks at the end of this session of Congress by creating a manufactured disagreement for the sake of scoring political points. Maybe after we get this week over with and we have had yet another week of gamesmanship, the Senate can get down to the business of passing a simple extension of the payroll rates in their current form and to offset that action with savings. There is an absolute majority in the Senate and in the House to do just that. In doing so, we can end 3 weeks of political theater with the Democrats trying to score points for 2012. I wish we could fast-forward to next week and get this important piece of legislation done and enact a continuation of the payroll taxes that a vast majority of Republicans and Democrats support.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in support of the fiscal year 2012 national defense authorization bill. As ranking member on the Seapower Subcommittee, I wish to thank both Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for their leadership. It is somewhat of an achievement in actually getting the bill to the floor at this time, and I appreciate their determination. As we approach the Thanksgiving holiday next week, I would like to take a moment to honor the men and women of our Armed Forces. We are grateful for their service, and our thoughts and prayers are with those now deployed at sea and ashore. My own State of Mississippi is home to many brave servicemembers. Their sacrifices are matched, of course, by those of their families who have supported them day in and day out as they selflessly serve this country. As ranking member of the Seapower Subcommittee, I have had the pleasure of working with my friend Senator Reed of Rhode Island, who is chairman of that subcommittee. We both worked to ensure that this bill meets a wide range of procurement, sustainment and research and development needs for the Navy and the Marine Corps. Our deliberations were informed by, among other things, a series of hearings we held that addressed force structure and modernization for the Department of the Navy. This process has resulted in a bill that contains provisions which will deliver important capabilities and support our sailors and marines. The bill before us is supportive of the President's shipbuilding budget request and contributes to the continued vitality of our shipbuilding industrial base which is very important. At a time when we are concerned about job creation, the last thing we want to do is let our industrial base be chipped away. The fiscal year 2012 shipbuilding budget funds new construction for various types and classes of ships, including an aircraft carrier, amphibious ships, submarines, and large and small surface combatants, totaling more than $15 billion. From our discussions during the Seapower Subcommittee meetings, it has become abundantly clear that members are concerned about challenges in maintaining fleet capacity among many classes of ships and the capability gaps that exist that have a real effect on the sailors who crew these ships. From amphibious ships to aircraft carriers to destroyers and to submarines, our Navy must maintain an adequate balance among all classes of ships to ensure our Navy can execute these responsibilities. Through classified briefings we have received from senior officials in the Navy and in the intelligence community, the Seapower Subcommittee also is well aware of the imminent and emerging threats facing our sea services. America must maintain its capability to project power and uphold our obligations to our friends and allies throughout the world. This means robust investment in seapower, and I am heartened that this bill contains such an investment. With the Deficit Reduction Committee's recommendations due to Congress in less than 1 week, I know all my colleagues agree that cutting our deficit and reducing our national debt responsibly is a must. Failing to act will put the burden on our children and grandchildren. We must make tough decisions now on spending because our current track is unsustainable. I hope the Deficit Reduction Committee is able to come to an agreement on spending priorities because the alternative is unacceptable cuts in national defense. We must remember that national defense is solely a Federal responsibility. Failure to reach consensus would have grave consequences for our military. Marine Corps Commandant GEN James Amos cautioned about such cuts earlier this week. In conclusion, I believe the national defense authorization bill reaffirms our commitment to national security and to our men and women in uniform. I urge my colleagues to act quickly on this important piece of legislation, and once again I thank and commend my friends, Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that LCDR Ted Essenfeld, a very capable Navy fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges during consideration of the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor and strong supporter of this resolution of disapproval. Once again, we are witnessing a government regulation we do not need. There is a reason when we talk about today's economy that we talk about the cost of government overreach. Unnecessary regulations put a wet blanket on job creation, and they work against getting our economy back on track. This is a perfect example of the government standing in the way of growth and investment. The Internet and its associated applications should be allowed to develop without excessive FCC redtape. The Internet owes a great deal of its rapid success to innovators and entrepreneurs who had the freedom to imagine, to explore, and to create. With the FCC acting as a traffic cop, this freedom will be compromised. The subjective rules of the road, as laid out by the FCC, are a prescription for uncertainty within the industry. By handing over more power to a government agency, net neutrality rules slam the brakes on potential investment and new innovation. The ideas that should make our Internet faster, more secure, and better for consumers fall by the wayside. At the end of the day, the American consumer would suffer. The broadband marketplace would simply offer fewer services, fewer devices, and less content to paying customers. The FCC order reads that Internet providers ``shall not block lawful content, applications, services or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.'' It goes on to say that providers ``shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer's broadband Internet access service.'' But the terms ``lawful'' and ``reasonable'' are not easily defined. Under the order, what is lawful and what is reasonable would be determined by unelected bureaucrats. The FCC would rule as a de facto police of the open and free Internet. The FCC would be the final arbiter of what broadband service providers can and cannot do. Its judgments--not the market or the consumer--would determine how networks would be managed. The FCC is claiming to have an authority that the American public did not grant it. The hands of the Internet service providers will be tied when the FCC has this kind of power. Without being able to run their own networks, service providers cannot maximize the online experience for the vast majority of their customers. They are, in essence, prevented from doing what they were established to do. Equally troubling is that the Commission's order is trying to fix a problem that does not exist. Today's consumers have greater access to more Internet services than ever before. Where is the problem? Businesses have invested tens of billions of dollars in new broadband infrastructure. Internet entrepreneurs continue to offer new services to broadband users. There is no economic justification for this unprecedented intrusion into the marketplace. Policy should benefit the public, and these FCC rules do not. In conclusion, we have seen this movie before, with regulation where regulation is not needed. Again, here we have a regulatory recipe that would produce far-reaching and damaging effects. The current landscape has allowed the Internet to grow exponentially. It is a free market of competition, productivity, and growth. The FCC's regulatory intrusion is completely unwarranted. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam 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.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I have come to the floor on a number of occasions to voice my concern about the deteriorating rule of law and the lack of respect for human rights in Russia, primarily highlighting the cases of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev. The fact that Khodorkovsky and Lebedev remain in jail is deplorable. But I rise to speak about another case, in which a man who opposed the government not only went to jail but died there. I choose my words carefully this afternoon, knowing that they will be disturbing to many and that a number of people within the Russian Government will take great offense. But I want everyone within the sound of my voice to know that I am choosing my words carefully. Sergei Magnitsky was a lawyer and a partner with an American-owned law firm based in Moscow. He was married, with two children. His clients included the Hermitage Fund, which is the largest foreign portfolio investor in Russia. Through Sergei Magnitsky's investigative work on behalf of Hermitage, it was discovered that Russian Interior Ministry officers, tax officials, and organized criminals worked together to steal $230 million in public funds, orchestrating the largest tax rebate fraud in Russian history. As Magnitsky would come to find out, this group had fraudulently reregistered three investment companies of the Hermitage Fund and embezzled from the Russian Treasury all of the profits, taxes, that these companies had paid, and did so under the guise of a tax refund. In October of 2008, Magnitsky voluntarily gave sworn testimony against officials from the Interior Ministry, against Russian tax departments, and the private criminals who he found had perpetrated the fraud. A month later, Interior Ministry officers came to his Moscow apartment, arrested him in front of his wife and two children, and threw him in pretrial detention. At the same time, the Russian Federal Security Service claimed there was evidence that Magnitsky had applied for a U.K. visa and that he was considered a flight risk. The Russian courts used this to prolong the term of his detention without a trial to 12 months. I should note that the British Embassy in Moscow has confirmed that Mr. Magnitsky had not applied for a U.K. visa since the year 2002, and so the pretrial detention was based on a fabrication. Once in custody, Magnitsky was pressured and tortured by officials, hoping he would withdraw his testimony, and asking him to falsely incriminate himself and his client. They placed Mr. Magnitsky in an overcrowded cell with no heat, no window panes, no toilet, and kept lights on all night in order to deprive him of sleep. Each time he refused to withdraw his testimony against the officials, his conditions worsened--as did his health. He lost 40 pounds and developed severe pancreatitis and gallstones. On July 25, 2009, 1 week before a planned operation by detention center doctors, Mr. Magnitsky was transferred to a maximum security detention center with no medical facilities. He spent the next 4 months of his life without any medical care. All of his requests for medical examination and surgery were denied by the Russian Government officials. The Interior Ministry officials managing Magnitsky's detention refused family visits as ``inexpedient to the investigation.'' From the time of his arrest, Magnitsky saw his wife only once. He never saw his children again after his arrest. During his 358 days in detention, Mr. Magnitsky wrote more than 450 petitions requesting medical attention and challenging his cruel treatment, the denial of legal remedies, and protesting his being taken hostage by the very Interior Ministry officials he had testified against. Every petition filed was either ignored or rejected by Russian authorities. On November 13, 2009, Sergei Magnitsky's condition worsened dramatically. Doctors saw him on November 16, when he was transferred to a Moscow detention center that had medical facilities. Instead of being delivered to the detention center hospital and actually treated immediately, Mr. Magnitsky was placed in an isolation cell, reportedly handcuffed, beaten, and he died in that cell. On the day following Mr. Magnitsky's death, detention center officials informed his lawyers that he had died from a rupture of his abdominal membrane and toxic shock. That same day, although detention center facilities had said abdominal membrane and toxic shock, the official cause of his death was changed to heart failure. Indeed. Two requests by his family for an independent autopsy were rejected by Russian authorities. A week after Mr. Magnitsky's death, senior Russian Interior Officials publicly claimed that Magnitsky was not sick at all in detention. Seven months after his death, Interior Ministry officials claimed they were not aware of Magnitsky's complaints and requests for medical assistance. Ten months after his death, the Russian state investigative committee claimed that Magnitsky was not pressured and tortured but died naturally of heart disease. His death, the committee claimed, was ``nobody's fault.'' Nearly 2 years after Magnitsky's death, not a single person has been prosecuted for his false arrest, for his torture, for his murder in custody, or for the $230 million theft he exposed. Some may question the facts I have outlined today. Are they in dispute? I would point out that on November 23, 2009, 1 week after Mr. Magnitsky's death, the chair of President Medvedev's Human Rights Council publicly raised Magnitsky's death with President Medvedev. The following day, President Medvedev ordered the General Prosecutor and the Justice Minister of Russia to investigate the death. The investigation was limited and did not result in any criminal prosecutions. However, on December 28, 2009, the Moscow Public Oversight Commission, an independent watchdog mandated under Russian law to monitor human rights abuses in Moscow prisons and detention centers, issued its conclusions on the Magnitsky case. The report stated that in detention, Magnitsky had been subjected to torturous conditions, physical and psychological pressure, and was denied medical care. Moreover, the members of this courageous Commission concluded that his right to life had been violated by the Russian State--by the Russian State. These conclusions were sent to the Russian General Prosecutor's Office, the Russian State Investigative Committee, the Russian Ministry of Justice, the Presidential Administration, and the Federal Penitentiary Service. None of the government agencies responded to any of the report's conclusions. Then, on July 5, 2011--this year--the Russian President's Human Rights Council issued its independent expert findings on the Magnitsky case. The report found the following: that Mr. Magnitsky was arrested on trumped-up charges in breach of Russian law and the European Human Rights Convention; that his prosecution was unlawful; that he was systematically denied medical care; that he was beaten in custody, which was a proximate cause of his death; that his medical records were falsified; and that there is an ongoing coverup and resistance by all government bodies to investigate. Thank heaven for the intrepid members of the Russian President's Human Rights Council. While little has been done inside Russia regarding that case, action has been taken here in the United States. In May 2011, I joined Senator Ben Cardin in introducing the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act. The bill extends the application of visa and economic sanctions to officials in the Magnitsky case and in other cases of gross human rights abuses. The legislation currently has 23 sponsors, and I urge all of my colleagues to consider joining us on this bill. Join us on this bill today. On September 16, 2011, 15 leading human rights activists and representatives of the Russian civil society issued an open letter urgently calling on this Congress to pass this legislation. The letter states: Sergei Magnitsky has become a victim of the inhumane Russian justice system. Many Russian citizens are unlawfully deprived of liberty due to the travesties of this system. The impunity of those who have fabricated the case against Magnitsky and have persecuted him opens the door for other officials who enrich themselves with stolen property and target political opponents of the re- gime. . . . The letter goes on to say: The consistent application of international pressure on corrupt members of the ruling establishment would significantly support our civil society and those honest individuals inside the Russian power structures who are trying to revamp and reform the existing government institutions. The letter concludes: We urge you-- They urge us, the Members of Congress-- to adopt the ``Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2011'' without any delay. We in the Senate should be standing in support of the principled, fearless Russian citizens who have the courage to expose these corrupt abuses, to expose the brutality and thuggery of their own Russian Government. I urge President Obama and I urge Secretary Clinton to make human rights and rule of law in Russia a central part of our efforts to reset bilateral relations. Without commitment to these basic principles, our efforts to find common ground on other issues of mutual concern will continue to be undermined. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. The point is, they are a bunch of average, hard-working Mississippians, average, hard-working Americans, who are glad to come to work each day, working hard to build these boats, and we ought to encourage them. I don't know the corporate structure of that particular job creator, but I know the larger point is that many of the job creators do pay taxes at the individual level. We know from research that four out of five of the taxpayers who would pay the higher taxes being proposed by the President are business owners--the very people we are hoping will create jobs, and create them soon for Americans.

Mr. WICKER. Well, just to say this, and I will take a minute to say it and then I will thank my friend from Georgia for taking the lead on this colloquy. We also need to show job creators that we are actually serious about fixing our fiscal house. You know, we have had the Gang of 6, we have had the Simpson-Bowles Commission, we have had Dr. Coburn and Senator Lieberman with a proposal, and we have had Alice Rivlin's proposal--an expert on budgetary matters. We know the solutions that are out there, and they are hard to do politically. They would subject us all to intense political criticism and a firestorm. But if we do it on a bipartisan basis for the good of this country now, for the good of not only job creators today and people out there who are dying to come back to work but also for future generations, then we can do the right thing. I will simply say this: I call on the President of the United States to give us some leadership on working together on a bipartisan basis to make these tough decisions. If we do it together, as Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did in the 1980s, we can make the case to the American people that sometimes you have to do hard things, but we do things on a bipartisan basis to create jobs and to make a better future for future generations. It will not be done unless the Chief Executive of the United States of America comes forward and signals a willingness to hold hands with us and do the right thing for the future. I desperately hope in these final months of 2011 we can get that signal sent to the committee of 12, and that we can work together to make major, significant structural changes that will save our fiscal future. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WICKER. Well, there is no question about it. I appreciate my two friends coming down and helping with this colloquy today. There are two companies I want to talk about in a moment, but let me say at the outset that we all want to create jobs for Americans, there is no question about it. The President came into office wanting to create jobs. The problem is, he has not let history be a guide. If we go ahead with this second stimulus bill, we will be following the same failed programs that not only have not created jobs for Americans, but, as a matter of fact, the policies have made things worse for Americans and for job creation. The President's proposal and the proposal the majority leader just embraced is a ``spend now, pay later'' approach. It is one that has been proven not to work. Three years after we tried this at the beginning of the President's term, we have not put more Americans back to work. This should be a glaring reminder of the failures of the first stimulus package and the probability and likelihood that this second stimulus package would be met with the same result. What we have seen since the first stimulus is that the Federal debt has skyrocketed, there are nearly 2 million fewer jobs, and the economic growth is limping along at a meager 1 percent. So many other countries have a higher GDP growth than that. It is tragic that our country has not kept up. The unemployment rate has hovered at 9 percent for 30 months in a row. If you add in those who have given up looking for work or settled for part-time work, that number skyrockets from around 9 percent unemployment, which is an unspeakable number, to some 16 percent. In fact, some 6 million people have been without a job for more than 6 months. We know the President's policies are not working. We have seen very slow movement and, frankly, in many instances, that movement has been backward. The big-government approach of spend now and pay later has simply been a wet blanket for America's job creators. The fact is there are some things on which we can agree. In this time of divided government, we must approach the idea of job creation in a bipartisan manner. The House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans. This body is controlled by Democrats. The executive branch, including the regulatory regime in this country, is strictly controlled by the Democratic Party. So we need to work together in a step-by-step approach. A comprehensive package of ``pass this bill, pass this bill immediately without amendments'' has been rejected by both Democrats and Republicans in this city, and we now need to embark on a step-by- step approach, and we can be quick about it. One example was yesterday. When we finally got around to it, the House of Representatives passed the trade bills, once the President sent them to us. That was done yesterday afternoon. By 7 or 8 last evening, the Senate passed all of these trade agreements on a huge bipartisan basis. So this is a step in the right direction. There are other things we can do. But I wish to commend the President for finally sending the trade bills to the Congress and for getting that done and opening the new markets. So that is a step. The Senator from Georgia mentioned some companies and some potential job creators in his State. My friend from Wyoming asked me to talk about examples in Mississippi. Actually, my wife Gail and I had an opportunity to participate in a christening of some boats in Gulfport, MS, just the day before yesterday. This was at the construction area of Trinity Yachts. I know what the initial reaction is: Why should we be concerned with yachts? I tell you why we should be concerned with yachts. Because we employ thousands upon thousands of Americans building those yachts. I will never own a yacht. I don't aspire to even travel on a yacht. But I am glad there are a bunch of people around the world who want to buy them, because we employ a thousand people at Trinity Yachts, and we want to increase that. As a matter of fact, what we helped christen the day before yesterday was not a yacht at all, it was two tugboats. Trinity Yacht makes tugboats, and they will be helping bring liquefied natural gas into the port of Pascagoula. So this shipyard built the tugs, Signet Maritime bought the tugs, and they will be creating jobs in Gulfport, and will be creating jobs at the Port of Pascagoula, and they want to create a lot more jobs. I was told by the management and ownership of Trinity Yachts that business is a little soft in the shipyard. But if the President would simply go back to what we used to have in terms of oil and gas permitting, if we would lift this de facto ban on oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico and get back to the business we had year before last, then business could be great guns at Trinity Yachts. We are not talking about yachts being constructed by Trinity, we are talking about oil and gas drilling platforms. The quicker permits and drilling projects in the Gulf of Mexico could bring about more than 200,000 new jobs in the next year. That is a job creator proposal that is simple. All we need to do is enforce the law that is currently on the books and get back to permitting so we can get back to producing our own energy. The oil and natural gas sector is responsible for 9 million jobs, according to the Congressional Research Service, and we have in America the largest recoverable stores of natural gas, oil, and coal on Earth. So if you want to know another Republican proposal--which is a bipartisan proposal when you get down to it, because our gulf coast delegation consists of Republicans and Democrats--then here is a concrete proposal: Let's get back to producing our own energy resources in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere in the United States. Nine million jobs, and it could be more.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I thank the distinguished majority leader for yielding. I will not take long. I have been in the Senate 4 years now, and I think my colleagues know I do not come down to the floor and spout a lot of hot air. But I have to be heard tonight. I will agree with my friend the majority leader on one thing: This is no way to legislate. He said those words a few moments ago, and I agree. We have become accustomed to a procedure, and I have disagreed with that procedure, but it has been the regular order during the time I have been here; that is, the usual practice is a bill is brought to the floor, and the majority leader immediately offers every amendment that can possibly be offered in a parliamentary way, thus filling the amendment tree and preventing other Senators from offering amendments. Then cloture is filed and we don't have an opportunity to have a full hearing. I am told this has not always been the practice, but we have been accustomed to that practice. What happened tonight is far different from that. I think that is why my friend from Tennessee propounded the question to the majority leader. We had a bill--and it may be a messaging bill, but if it were passed, it would be a significant piece of legislation. I think both sides acknowledge that. No amendments were allowed precloture and no amendments have been allowed postcloture. The majority leader, this very day, after the cloture vote assured the Senate that we would be operating under an open process. He said those words. Not only that-- and perhaps the majority leader, when I finish in a moment or two, could correct me--I believe I heard the majority leader say we would be allowed to offer motions to suspend the rules on a number of amendments, and debate would be allowed. What occurred was that Senator Coburn offered his motion to suspend the rule on his amendment. We assumed we would be able to do this on at least a few amendments. But the very first amendment that was offered, the majority leader suggested to the Chair, and made the point of order to the Chair, that it was dilatory--one amendment. That was deemed dilatory by the majority leader, and the Parliamentarian correctly instructed the Chair to overrule that suggestion by the majority leader, upholding the precedent of the Senate. And one by one, Democratic Members of this body had to march down and vote to overrule the Parliamentarian of this Senate for the very purpose of shutting down the chance to offer one single amendment, when the majority leader well knew he had the votes to win. But our rules have, I thought, been designed--and I think our society is designed this way--around the concept that the minority has an opportunity to be protected; the minority has an opportunity to be heard in this body, of all bodies. What we have done tonight--unless we can remove that--is we have changed the rules of the Senate on a messaging bill, on a matter that the majority leader had the votes on. That is my objection. That is why I am so disturbed about the overreaction and heavyhandedness of this move. This is not a matter of supporting the leader on one bill that he wants to get us out of town on. This is precedent. Unless we can change it, we have forever changed the right of the majority to be heard postcloture. I am saddened about that.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, has a unanimous consent request been propounded, or was the majority leader simply stating that we would proceed to vote on Tuesday unless there was objection?