Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I wish to be recognized to speak then.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, if I could reserve the right to object, and I may or may not object but----

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. If the Senator wishes to speak, I don't want to prevent him from speaking.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise this evening to call attention to the disturbing developments in Sudan and the newly created nation of South Sudan. I fear the ongoing violence there risks undermining the progress that has been made for lasting peace after decades of civil war and bloodshed. It has been indeed a historic year for the people of South Sudan. Almost 3 months ago, on July 9, South Sudan was formally recognized as a sovereign nation, becoming Africa's 54th state. An overwhelming 98.8 percent of South Sudanese voters chose independence from the central government of Sudan in the referendum held this January. For the millions of people whose lifetimes have known only war, the hope of a better future was finally on the horizon. Like many, I was cautiously encouraged by the news that the South Sudanese decided to take a path toward democracy and toward justice. Like many, I realized this path would be a difficult one as conflict persists in Darfur and other areas around the border, such as Abyei, Blue Nile, and Southern Kordofan. Unfortunately, recent reports of violence confirm the tenuous relationship between north and south that exists in the wake of independence. Escalating unrest points to the abandonment of peaceful negotiations by the north and a return to military intimidation and fighting. Tragically, civilians have been caught in the crossfire. According to a post from CNN in late July, hospitals in the Nuba Mountains are overflowing with civilians who have been hurt in attacks by the northern army. This is how the report describes the scene: In one hospital room a nurse tried to clean the blown apart face of a young boy. In another, a 12-year-old girl suffered from advanced tetanus after her arm was cut off by shrapnel. Doctors said she had little chance of surviving. This violence, affecting innocent children, is unacceptable. Attacks against civilians are among a number of violations that have been cited by the United Nations against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir's government, which denies the allegations and insists it is only fighting rebels loyal to South Sudan. In a report this summer, the United Nations suggests the attacks by Sudanese Armed Forces in the border state of Southern Kordofan have amounted to human rights violations and war crimes. Most of the violence there is affecting the Nuba people, a mostly Christian minority aligned with South Sudan but left on the opposite side of the border. Thousands have been forced to flee to caves for refuge in the Nuba Mountains. Even more worrisome is that the violence is spreading. In May, the Sudanese Armed Forces invaded the disputed area of Abyei and displaced an estimated 100,000, among them nearly 4,000 children. Just last month, the Sudanese Parliament authorized military action in nearby Blue Nile. We should not forget the legacy of President Bashir's dictatorial regime as these atrocities continue to mount. Mr. Bashir has already been indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity and war crimes over the conflict in Darfur, and the United States continues to impose sanctions on the northern government. The full extent of the violence in the border areas between Sudan and South Sudan is hard to determine because U.N. agencies and humanitarian groups have been denied access. But this is no excuse for ignoring the warning signs of a dangerous predicament. All too often, we recognize crises after far too many lives have been lost. What we do know about the current situation is ominous. The African Center For Justice and Peace Studies says supporters of the Sudan People's Liberation Army-North are being arbitrarily arrested on the basis of their perceived political affiliation and subject to extrajudicial killings. Refugees have described execution-style murders. International calls for the northern government to cease its aerial bombings have been blatantly ignored. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, OCHA, reports that more than 100,000 people are thought to be displaced by fighting in Blue Nile alone. The U.N. estimates for South Kordofan top 200,000 displaced persons. Just last month, an article in the New York Times reported that a satellite imagery project monitoring parts of Sudan had captured images of mass graves. We have always known South Sudan would face serious challenges this year and in the coming years as a free independent nation. What we cannot allow is its democratic future to hang in the balance as old scores are reignited and innocent lives are lost. Let's not forget the horrors of the civil war that ensued for 22 years before President George W. Bush engineered the comprehensive peace agreement in 2005. During that civil war, more than 2 million died, more than 4 million were displaced, and 600,000 fled the country as refugees. I urge my colleagues not to lose focus on the hundreds of thousands of people who have been unfairly hurt by this violence. They have already endured far too much suffering. I join the U.S. State Department in its call for the hostilities to stop and for responsible dialog to resume. The longer the violence continues, the harder it will be to move forward toward lasting peace. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to two law enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line of duty at the U.S. Capitol on July 24, 1998. Thirteen years ago today, Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective John Michael Gibson each of whom had spent 18 years on the Capitol Police force, lost their lives while safeguarding the Capitol against an armed, emotionally disturbed individual. As a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives at this time, I interacted with these officers on a regular basis. Their tragic, violent deaths profoundly affected us all. We want these officers' family members and friends to know that these two fine police officers did not die in vain; if not for their courageous and immediate response, many more innocent people could have been injured or killed on that day in 1998. On this date, we take a moment to remember the sacrifice made by these law enforcement officers on our behalf. We keep them, their families, friends, and former colleagues in our thoughts and prayers. I also want to take this opportunity to thank all law enforcement officers serving at the local, State, and Federal level who put their lives on the line for the American public every day. Our Nation is fortunate to have so many fine men and women serving as law enforcement officers in Mississippi and across the Nation.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I think absolutely it should cause concern and this is something both parties have campaigned on in the past, the lack of transparency, the lack of time, things being rushed through at the last minute. But my larger point is that on Friday afternoon the President was calling for a plan, any plan. He said there was only one condition: We must be political about it. We must get past the presidential reelection in 2012. Then on Sunday night not just any plan was presented to the President but a bipartisan plan by both leaders in this body on behalf of their membership and the Republican Speaker of the House who said, we believe we can get this through, and the President rejected it out of hand. That is the larger point. The point of the Senator from Alabama is well taken. The legislative language is important. The agreement in concept is one thing, but as he is pointing out, the legislative language is also important. As ranking member of the Budget Committee, he knows full well Members need time to see if the language actually reduced the concepts into writing that can be enforced and work long term to get us out of this horrendous debt crisis we are in. I appreciate the Senator's point.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business. I certainly will not take 10 minutes that the majority leader has requested because I know the Senator from Alabama is eager to speak. I wish to make sure I understand where we are with regard to the debt ceiling. I have an article from The Hill, dated yesterday. It points out--it heard the same thing in the speech the rest of the Nation heard when the President spoke--the President said he would be willing to work on any plans lawmakers brought to him over the weekend. The President went on to say: The only bottom line I have is that we have to extend this debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013. I ask my colleagues what does the election of 2012 have to do with the debt ceiling? What does it have to do with deciding to pay our obligations after August 2? What does it have to do with avoiding the calamity we have all heard about from both sides of the aisle and certainly from the administration? It strikes me as very odd that most debt ceiling extensions have been about 7 months during a decade-long period, and for some reason because of the election of 2012, the President of the United States wants to extend the deadline past that election into 2013. I think it makes Americans wonder if the President is playing politics with this very important issue. The President went on to say in the press conference that we all listened to that he wondered if the Republicans were able to say yes to any agreement. That was the President on Friday evening. Now we come to Washington, DC today with the clock ticking, 8 days away from a supposed debacle, and I read in today's Wall Street Journal this report by Jamie Dupree, President Obama last night rejected a bipartisan deal offered to him by congressional leaders of both parties which would have provided for a short-term extension of the debt limit in order to avoid a U.S. Government default. The agreement involved Speaker Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and Senate GOP Leader McConnell. In fact, according to this Wall Street Journal article, staffers from Senator Reid and Senator McConnell's offices were working on the legislative language together on Sunday. When Reid took the bipartisan, bicameral plan down to the White House, it was rejected by the President. I ask my colleagues: Who is unable to say yes? The Democratic majority leader of this body said yes to a bipartisan agreement. The Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, the leader of that majority in the other body, said yes to an agreement. Senator Reid's colleague and friend, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, said yes to a bipartisan agreement, and then Senator Reid was given the task of taking it to the President of the United States and the President rejected it. I think Americans have a right to ask who is unable to say yes to a bipartisan deal that gets us out of this box. Who is playing politics with this issue? The public debt is $14.2 trillion. We meet the deadline a week from tomorrow. The clock is ticking. The President had an opportunity to say yes to a bipartisan agreement endorsed by the leadership of this Congress and yet he said no. I am calling on this President, on my President, to do the right thing by the American people and to do the right thing for our country and for our economy and ask this bipartisan group of leaders to come back to the White House and say yes to the agreement which they offered him last night. I thank the President. I thank the Senator from Alabama for allowing me to go in front of him. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Well, I guess I got to the House in 1995; my friend from Alabama came to the Senate 2 years later. I don't think we could have imagined an annual deficit of $1.5 trillion in 1 short year. We are spending that much more than we are taking in. In other words, we take in $2.2 trillion a year, approximately, and we spend $3.7 trillion a year, a difference of $1.5 trillion. I don't think we ever expected it to get that serious when the Senator from Alabama and I first got here. Clearly there is no way we can turn back the clock, but the Senator is correct. If we had enacted with just one more vote in this very body a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, clearly we would not be facing this fiscal crisis. I want to also make a very important point, and it is what all of the papers are talking about, and that is whether somehow a tax increase targeted to deficit reduction is the thing to do. Listen, my friends, Republicans and Democrats over time until recently have been united in saying tax increases are a bad thing to do. I want to ask my colleagues if they can help identify the public official who said this quote: The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession, because that would take more demand out of the economy and put businesses in a further hole. Would any of my colleagues care to guess? Senator Lee?

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

Mr. WICKER. Absolutely. Somehow the President, who made a very cogent and correct statement in 2009, has completely changed his tune now. We could have a budget deal in place on the floor of the House and Senate and ready to be passed if the President of the United States would simply come back to the position he took in 2009 and 2010. As late as December of 2010, the President was telling the New York Daily News we should keep the tax rates in place. The budget chairman in the Senate told Reuters last July, only 1 year ago, that he supported extending the tax cuts and keeping them in place, because to raise taxes on the private sector during a time of economic downturn is taking money out of the private sector and killing its ability to create jobs. I would simply call on my colleagues from the other side of the aisle to return to the position they had 1 year ago and 2 years ago. Let's get a budget deal that addresses the debt by cutting spending and be united as we were on that issue some 1 year and 2 years ago.

Mr. WICKER. Of course, the process is important, and it is designed for the President and the Congress to work together to solve these problems. I think the process may be broken, which I think points up why we really, bottom line, need a constitutional amendment to require the President to submit a balanced budget and to require this Congress to enact a balanced budget. You know, the President submitted a budget to us with deficits as far as the eye could see. The budget was brought to a vote under sort of an interesting procedure here, and it didn't get one single vote. Not one Republican, not one Democrat would vote for President Obama's budget. We hear rumblings that the Democratic chairman of the Senate Budget Committee may actually be about to bring a budget forward. It has been 800 days. We passed the 800-day mark last week. The chairman of the Budget Committee and the process have failed to work to actually bring a budget out to the floor, out from behind closed doors, as my friend from Wisconsin had said, and let us vote on all of these procedures. So I would simply say the President's budget was a nonstarter. I think if the Senate Democratic version ever were to be devised and brought to the floor, it would be a nonstarter, which is why we haven't seen such a proposal in 800 days. Bottom line: Republicans are united on this side in resisting tax increases on our economy at a time when we are at 9.2 percent unemployment, and we are united--all 47 of us--in saying we need a basic change in the process in this country of enacting a balanced budget amendment and sending that amendment out to the States for ratification. That would be the type of process reform I think the American people agree we need.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Yes, I appreciate that.

Mr. WICKER. I thank my friend from Tennessee for yielding.

Mr. WICKER. If the Senate majority were serious about their efforts to reduce the Federal debt, the administration would not be continuing its efforts to spend our way to prosperity. We would be bringing to the floor a budget to cut spending, to make a serious effort against these huge Federal deficits we are seeing. We would not be engaging in the politics of fear. We would not be engaging in the politics of class warfare. We would be getting to business this week. I hope that is what we will do. The only way I know to get that debate is to vote ``no'' on the motion for cloture this afternoon. I think a number of my colleagues will be doing so. If some 41 of us can muster a ``no'' vote on the motion to invoke cloture, then we can have the debate on Libya at another time and we can get today and this week to the one and only reason we are back in town; that is, this debt that consumes us, that threatens our national security, our national well-being and we are called upon to debate by our colleagues and our constituents.

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

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, this weekend, a local newspaper in Mississippi ran a lead editorial that wondered aloud whether the cancellation of the Senate's Independence Day recess signaled a ``serious effort on the part of Senate leaders'' and the White House to make headway in addressing the Federal debt. Regrettably, the answer to that question is obviously no. For that reason, I wish to announce at this point that I will be voting no this afternoon on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to a debate on Libya. Clearly, Libya is an important issue. I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. I have the greatest of respect for both my chairman and the ranking member. But I will remind colleagues what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said recently: The most important national security issue facing the United States of America is the national debt and we should not move to a vote on Libya and to a discussion on Libya--which, frankly, is almost academic at this point--until we debate the crucial issue facing the Senate; that is, the issue of the national debt. If we had a serious effort to talk about the national debt, in this week of recess that has been canceled, we would be convening the Budget Committee today and asking them to report a budget on the floor for the first time in almost 800 days so we could have a debate on the floor about the budget.

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

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Offshore Production and Safety Act, a measure to increase domestic production of oil and natural gas in this country. There are any number of things that make the United States the great Nation it is. Three of these things relate directly to the debate on the legislation that we will vote on this afternoon. They include our bountiful natural resources, the freedoms established by our Founding Fathers, and the determination of the American people. The measure offered by the majority yesterday would have worked to stifle these very characteristics by discouraging economic activity, taxing industriousness, and putting more of our resources off-limits for development. From the oil wealth of the gulf coast, to the coal reserves of Appalachia, from the hydroelectric power that characterizes much of the American West, to the oilfields of Alaska, America is blessed with an almost boundless supply of energy wealth. From the time of this Nation's founding, Americans have sought to explore and develop this bounty. I am pleased to note that in recent decades we have become more responsible stewards of this endowment. Last night, I held a telephone townhall meeting with many of my constituents, and the issues of gasoline prices and energy independence were raised repeatedly. It is certainly not surprising in light of the high gasoline prices we are facing today. As I told Mississippians again last night during this townhall meeting that I favor an all-of- the-above approach to addressing America's energy needs. I have supported, and continue to support, innovation in the area of biofuels, geothermal power, wind, and solar energy. At the same time, however, we need to address current needs with currently available domestic energy resources, such as oil and natural gas. The measure we debate today, the Offshore Production and Safety Act, is a balanced one that offers a timely way forward by presenting a path toward lower fuel prices, job creation, and energy independence. This legislation is responsive to the needs of the American people, not at some uncertain date in the future but now, making use of the resources and technology available today. The specifics of the legislation before us are straightforward and commonsense. This bill would require proposed lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico, in the Mid-Atlantic, and those off of Alaska to be completed. It would cut bureaucratic redtape while speeding up the approval of drilling permits. Energy activities suspended during the administration's moratorium on offshore drilling would be extended by 1 year. Safety considerations are also taken into account under this bill, taking lessons that we learned from last year's Deepwater Horizon tragedy, to make deepwater drilling safer than before. Energy independence--a goal we all share--can only be achieved through conservation, innovation, and domestic exploration, but domestic exploration must be a part of this in order for us to obtain independence. According to a 2009 report by the CRS, America's combined recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth. It is far larger than the reserves of Saudi Arabia, China, and Canada. We have the resources to meet our energy needs. I point out again that this is the independent Congressional Research Service that tells us this. Closely related to this issue is the one of job creation in America-- one that we should all be interested in with the unemployment rate currently at 9 percent. America's oil and natural gas industry is responsible for 9.2 million jobs in this country. I know the people who have those jobs are proud to have them. I know the families who are supported by those jobs are proud of their family members who work in this industry. Wouldn't it be great if we can expand that 9.2 million to a higher figure? There was much discussion yesterday about taxation and budget considerations. Oil and natural gas production in the Gulf of Mexico raised over $67 million in revenues for the Federal and State governments in fiscal years 2008 through 2010. That is according to the Department of the Interior. Millions more went to land and water conservation. But because of the administration's moratorium, energy production in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to decrease by 13 percent this year, as estimated by the Energy Information Administration. Again, that is an official organ of this government. Overall, U.S. production is projected to drop by 110,000 barrels per day this year. This is not progress. The fact is, the United States is dangerously dependent on foreign sources for our energy needs. We import 60 percent of our petroleum needs in the United States. This is hardly a revelation. Yet the proposed bill offered by my friends in the majority would have led to increased dependence on the importation of energy from foreign countries, many of which are not supportive of American interests, to put it mildly. Furthermore, the suggestion that the appropriate response to soaring prices of gasoline is greater taxation on the companies that produce gasoline simply runs counter to common sense. In the larger picture, the administration's energy policy is not comprehensive in nature because it fails to promote the utilization of proven domestic resources, and the traditional domestic production it allows comes wrapped in bureaucratic redtape. If our goal is to increase our energy independence in the near term, the White House seems to want to lead us in the opposite direction. We do not encourage the increased production of any good by raising taxes and imposing more regulations on it. The McConnell alternative, which we will vote on this afternoon, takes a different strategy--one that would increase access to domestic oil and natural gas. It is a strategy that would create jobs and spur economic growth, while increasing government revenues and improving industry safety. Oil and natural gas reserves are abundant and accessible in the United States today. Tapping these domestic resources is integral to lowering energy prices and making us more energy independent. I urge my colleagues to support the Offshore Production and Safety Act as a logical, prudent step in the right direction for U.S. energy policy. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, on several occasions I have risen to address my colleagues on the topic of Russia and the continuing sad state of the rule of law in the Russian Federation. Today, I rise once again to address the latest information regarding the absence of a rule-of-law framework in Russia's approach to businesses and investors. Specifically, this situation negatively impacts the United States and the entire international community. There have been a number of poor decisions around the world related to the Yukos Oil issue that highlight Russia's hostility toward investment and business. As my colleagues may be aware, GML, the majority shareholder of the former Yukos Oil, previously headed by businessman and now political prisoner Mikhail Hoarders, has a $100 billion arbitration claim against the Russian Federation to obtain compensation for the Yukos assets which were summarily taken between 2003 and 2005. Several recent developments demonstrate yet again that international courts do not recognize Russia's 2003 expropriation of Yukos Oil Company as legitimate and that former stakeholders of the company may pursue compensation for their assets that were seized improperly and, in essence, nationalized by the Russian State. Court victories handed to shareholders involved in the dispute indicate that the international legal system will not recognize the validity of Russia's bankruptcy of Yukos. In December 2009, the New York Times detailed one of these victories in which an independent arbitration panel made a jurisdictional ruling that shareholders of the former Yukos Oil Company, GML, had the right to file and pursue an estimated $100 billion in damages from the Russian Government. The tribunal determined that Russia, as a signatory, was bound by the Energy Charter Treaty and must adhere to its provisions. This claim now moves to the next stage, with a decision expected in October 2013--regrettably slow but moving surely. The most recent victory occurred in December of last year and involved a second international arbitration tribunal in Stockholm, which awarded RosInvestCo UK, a minority shareholder of Yukos, $3.5 million for the damages resulting from the Russian Government's actions. This was the first case in which anyone seriously examined the claims of an individual Yukos shareholder. The panel independently and unanimously concluded that the Russian Federation was liable for expropriating RosInvestCo's assets. I stress to you that this was a unanimous decision even though the tribunal included a Russian arbitrator. I bring these developments to the attention of my Senate colleagues because I believe they demonstrate a growing movement in the international community that holds Russia accountable for its actions toward investors, and it is a movement the United States should support. Minority shareholders, such as RosInvestCo, are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to shareholders who lost billions that were rightfully theirs as a result of the seizure of Yukos assets. In the United States alone, shareholders were stripped of $6 billion to $12 billion. Russia's actions toward Yukos remind us that investment in Russia is extremely risky. The international community is taking note. Americans are taking note. American legislators should take note. Recent court decisions indicate that the legitimacy of the Russian Government's claims over Yukos assets are suspect at best. With these thoughts in mind, I urge my colleagues to continue working to ensure protection and adequate mechanisms for U.S. shareholders and businesses doing business in Russia. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WICKER

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