[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16857-16867]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     3% WITHHOLDING REPEAL AND JOB CREATION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 674, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the bill (H.R. 674) to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3 
     percent withholding on certain payments made to vendors by 
     government entities, to modify the calculation of modified 
     adjusted gross income for purposes of determining eligibility 
     for certain healthcare-related programs, and for other 
     purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  Iran

  Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I rise to talk about two entirely different 
subjects; first, on the subject of Iran, the subject of a critical 
International Atomic Energy Agency report that will be issued likely 
tomorrow.
  Credible press reports on the United Nations document tell us an 
important thing. Remember, it was the IAEA that urged caution with 
regard to the weapons of mass destruction program in Iraq. The record 
shows that the IAEA was largely correct on its determination there. 
Based on that credibility, we should listen to the IAEA and what they 
say in this groundbreaking report.
  Their report makes six very important conclusions according to 
credible press reports: No. 1, the Islamic Republic of Iran has used 
military people to procure dual-use nuclear material; No. 2, they have 
developed an undeclared nuclear material production line separate from 
their commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; No. 3, 
they have now acquired outside international information on the 
development of nuclear weapons; No. 4, they have begun work on an 
indigenous design for a nuclear weapon; and, No. 5, they are already 
substantially in excess of the 3-percent enrichment for uranium-235 
necessary to run a nuclear reactor as they originally claimed.
  The sixth conclusion, though, appears to be the most important. The 
International Atomic Energy Agency concludes they may have also begun 
work on a new payload for their Shahab-3 missile. This is a missile 
that largely comes from North Korea called the No Dong and is able to 
hit U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf and our allies in Israel. According 
to the reports on this U.N. document, it says the Shahab-3 payload has 
the correct mass for a nuclear weapon; it has a generator aboard the 
warhead that would be necessary to initiate a nuclear detonation; it is 
designed for an airburst to make that detonation most effective; the 
weapon has multiple detonators in it--I think this is a key conclusion 
because a conventional munition only requires one detonator, but a 
nuclear weapon requires multiple detonators; and this has it--it does 
not issue any submunitions, all the warhead is contained in one 
critical mass; and the Iranians have now prepared a 400-meter test 
shaft likely for a nuclear test shot.
  If this is not a smoking gun, I do not know what is. I do not know 
what the word for ``smoking gun'' in Farsi is, but clearly the United 
Nations, not known for speaking clearly on many topics, is now telling 
us one clear thing: the Islamic Republic of Iran is designing and 
moving toward building nuclear weapons.
  If we look at their record, we will see the Islamic Republic of Iran 
has transferred nearly every one of its advanced munitions it currently 
owns to terrorist organizations, including antishipping cruise 
missiles, which the Iranians transferred to Hezbollah.
  We have also known several dangerous--actually, dangerously weird--
things going on in the Islamic Republic of Iran, such as sentencing an 
Iranian actress to 90 lashes for appearing in an Australian film simply 
on the crime of not having her head covered--luckily, because the 
International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran called attention to 
this, apparently that sentence may be in abeyance--or credible reports 
this weekend that the Islamic Republic of Iran, under President 
Ahmadinejad, has arrested 70 fashion designers for anti-Islamic 
activity.
  What we know for a fact is that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been 
a state sponsor of terror, as certified by Presidents Carter, Reagan, 
Bush, Clinton, Bush 2, and President Obama under Secretary of State 
Clinton. We know they are the leading paymasters for Hezbollah and 
Hamas.
  What we can see clearly from this report is that this year, or likely 
the year after, they will have nuclear weapons. I think it is quite 
likely they would then transfer those nuclear weapons directly to 
Hezbollah and Hamas. This is something we cannot allow to happen, which 
is why action in the Senate and in the executive branch should occur on 
collapsing the Central Bank of Iran. We already have 92 Senators who 
have agreed, even in these partisan times, to collapse the Central Bank 
of Iran. Ninety-two Senators have signed on to the Kirk-Schumer letter 
to call for this action. This action was also just recommended in an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion in the House Foreign Affairs 
Committee under the leadership of Congressman Berman to recommend this 
also in the House. I think the administration--that has leaked several 
times to the New York Times that they have this

[[Page 16858]]

under consideration--should move in this direction.
  For those countries that substantially purchase oil from the Islamic 
Republic of Iran, we should work with our Saudi allies to make sure 
their needs are met so we can go ahead and collapse the Central Bank of 
Iran and the Iranian currency, especially in the wake of this report.
  Remember, this is the government that, according to Attorney General 
Eric Holder, led a plot to blow up a Georgetown restaurant, possibly 
involving the death of many Americans, including, they described, 
Senators, in an effort to kill the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the 
United States. This is singularly irresponsible activity and one that 
now, coupled with this IAEA report on nuclear weapons, should not be 
tolerated.


                       Protecting Privacy Rights

  Mr. President, I also rise to speak about another topic; which is 
that today the Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments on the 
case of United States v. Jones. The case concerns our rights to privacy 
as American citizens. As an American, I believe our government is the 
greatest government for the potential of every human being and the 
dignity of that human being. Under our Constitution, we had the first 
of any major government in the world to begin to protect that right of 
privacy, even against the government. It is enshrined in the fourth 
amendment to the Constitution.
  As the Founding Fathers defined it, I think our 18th century fourth 
amendment privacy rights--which are covered, including our house and 
our place of business--are well defined and well protected under our 
law.
  The question is this: What about our rights to privacy in the 21st 
century? What about the mobile device we carry, the tablet computer, 
the GPS in our car, and the various other computer devices we have? Do 
we have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to this data or 
can the government access this data and decide they can find out where 
we have been, whom we have been with, and how long we have been there 
without a warrant?
  Given the fact that the Supreme Court has just taken up oral 
arguments in this case, I think it is important for the Senate to back 
the Wyden-Kirk GPS Act. This is an act that basically says we should 
protect our rights of privacy in the 21st century as well as the 18th, 
19th, and 20th centuries, that we should not only be secure in our 
house and our papers, but we should be secure in our GPS data as well; 
that if the government seeks to find out where we have been and whom we 
have been with, at least it needs a warrant--our right as an American 
citizen protected in that privacy before having access to that 
information.
  I hope we consider this legislation as early as next year because I 
think we rise to our greatest potential in the Senate when we update 
our rights as Americans, to protect them not just in the 20th century 
but in the 21st century.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              IAEA REPORT

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today the International Atomic Energy 
Agency has issued its latest report on the nuclear weapons development 
program of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
  This latest IAEA report is the clearest warning about a potentially 
catastrophic threat to the United States since the Hart-Rudman 
Commission in January of 2001 predicted a major terrorist attack on our 
homeland, which, of course, occurred about 9 months later.
  The IAEA's message today is similarly stark. The extremist terrorist 
regime that rules Iran is actively working to possess nuclear weapons, 
and the time to stop them is running out. The Obama administration 
deserves credit for rallying the international community to put 
unprecedented diplomatic and economic pressure on the Iranian regime. 
But the sad fact is nothing the United States and our international 
partners have done has changed Iran's egregious, threatening, and in 
many cases murderous behavior, its pursuit of nuclear weapons, its 
sponsorship of terrorism, its infiltration of neighboring countries, 
its responsibility for training and equipping terrorists and extremists 
who have killed literally hundreds of American citizens in Iraq and 
throughout the Middle East or its repression of its own people.
  On the contrary, in all of these areas, notwithstanding the 
increasing international diplomatic and economic pressure on the regime 
in Iran, that regime's behavior has only grown more emboldened and more 
reckless.
  I know some have argued that the United States and our international 
partners can live with a nuclear Iran and that we can contain it. But 
the recent discovery of an Iranian terrorist plot, which was to be 
carried out on U.S. soil, killing the Saudi Ambassador here, targeting 
Members of Congress, and perhaps eventually the Israeli Ambassador and 
Embassy provide the clearest possible evidence of why we cannot hope to 
contain a regime as fanatical, expansionist, and brutal as the one that 
now rules Iran, particularly when it has the fearsome club of nuclear 
weapons capacity.
  If the Iranian regime acquires a nuclear weapons capability, it will 
be because the world, including us, allowed that to happen. It is still 
within our power to stop it. But it will require, in my opinion, more 
than further incremental pressure--which is to say more of what we have 
already been doing, which clearly has not changed the behavior of the 
regime in Tehran.
  It is time for the United States and our international partners to 
undertake what I would call nonincremental measures against the Iranian 
regime, and among those I would include tough sanctions on its central 
bank. It is also time for Congress to pass the new and tougher Iran 
sanctions legislation, which is in the Banking Committee and which over 
three-fourths of the Senate, in a very strong bipartisan statement, has 
cosponsored. There is no reason we cannot pass that bill before the end 
of this calendar year.
  Finally, it is time for the United States and our international 
partners to move beyond the formulation that has grown routine--and I 
am afraid ultimately hollow--which is that ``all options are on the 
table'' when it comes to Iran's nuclear weapons development program and 
its terrorist actions. It is time for an unequivocal declaration--all 
the more so in response to the IAEA report today--that we will stop 
Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability, we and our 
international partners--by peaceful means, if we possibly can, but with 
military force if we absolutely must.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Energy Production

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, several weeks ago, on September 28 of this 
year, I joined three of my Senate colleagues--Senators Shelby, Cornyn, 
and Hutchison--in requesting from the Obama administration and its 
Interior Department a detailed plan about what their new 5-year energy 
lease plan was going to be, as well as their plans for moving forward 
with scheduled leasing. We finally got some of the answers to that 
today as the administration released its new 5-year oil and gas lease 
plan. I guess that is the good news--we finally got our questions 
answered. There is a lot more bad news, unfortunately, which is what 
those answers are.
  It is deeply disappointing that we are not moving forward in a far 
more aggressive and positive way in developing our own domestic energy 
resources. As I said, today Secretary Salazar introduced President 
Obama's plan for the next 5 years of energy production, specifically on 
the Outer Continental

[[Page 16859]]

Shelf. For those Members in the Senate and for others who are not as 
familiar with energy production on the Outer Continental Shelf, this is 
basically the 5-year strategy for us as a nation in terms of oil and 
gas production domestically--what we are going to do in these next 5 
years to produce more of our own energy.
  The opportunity was enormous. As you remember, a few years ago, in 
2008, there was a bipartisan agreement to lift the decades-long ban on 
new offshore drilling and to open new areas off the Atlantic coast, off 
the Pacific Coast, and off the Arctic coast. Those opportunities were 
enormous. This map illustrates what the opportunities were given that 
2008 lifting of the moratorium.
  Previously, this had been off limits, this had been off limits--much 
of this had been off limits. But in 2008, on a bipartisan basis, 
Congress--even a Democratic Congress--heard the cry of the American 
people and said we need to develop more domestic energy resources, so 
we opened all of these possibilities.
  Unfortunately, President Obama chose not to take advantage of those 
opportunities because this map represents his new 5-year plan announced 
today--the entire Atlantic coast, off limits; the entire Pacific Coast, 
off limits; much of the Alaska coast, off limits; the western gulf of 
Mexico, where there has traditionally been significant activity, of 
course, is still there, but even the eastern gulf has been withdrawn 
under related Federal law until 2022. That is deeply disappointing.
  Put another way, in the previous 5-year lease plan, there were about 
30 sale areas that were outlined to have lease sales, 30 specific areas 
around our Outer Continental Shelf. That was the previous 5-year plan. 
That plan existed when President Obama took office. One of the first 
things he did in the energy area, with his Secretary of Interior Ken 
Salazar was to throw that plan out the window almost immediately. This 
was well before the BP disaster. It was not in reaction to that 
disaster or anything else specific; they just threw that 5-year lease 
plan out the window. In this new 5-year lease plan--their first in the 
Obama administration, which they are announcing today--instead of 30 
different areas, there are about 15. So they moved backward, cutting in 
half the number of lease sales that were planned in the 5-year plan.
  Put another way, instead of having about six lease sales per year, 
there are only going to be three. As any fourth grader can tell you, 
doing that simple math, that is moving backward by a lot. That is going 
from about 30 lease sales to half that number--15. That is going from 
about six a year to half that number--three.
  Our energy needs are not moving backward. Our desire and need for 
increased energy independence is not moving backward. Yet our effort 
and our ability to access our own domestic oil and gas on our own Outer 
Continental Shelf under this Obama plan is doing exactly that--it is 
moving backward.
  Let me put it a different way. The Outer Continental Shelf of the 
United States is about 1.76 billion acres, almost 2 billion acres. But 
of all that vast expanse, only 38 million acres are actually leased. 
That is 2.16 percent of our entire Outer Continental Shelf. This new 5-
year plan increases that a tiny amount at the margin. It keeps it under 
3 percent. With a vast, energy-rich Outer Continental Shelf, we are 
still 3 percent or under of what we could access under this new plan.
  Again, we are moving backward from the previous 5-year plan that 
President Obama threw out quickly upon taking office. That is deeply 
disappointing. If I am disappointed, I know there are some folks who 
are even more disappointed, including our colleagues in Virginia. Some 
select production and lease-sale activity off the Virginia coast was 
planned in the previous 5-year plan. That is out the window. As you can 
see, nothing can go on off the Atlantic. Also, four geologic basins off 
southern California and one geologic basin off northern California were 
in the previous 5-year plan. That is out the window. That is barred. 
There is nothing that can happen off the Pacific coast. Even in Alaska, 
the North Aleutian Basin and the Cook Inlet were in the previous 5-year 
plan. That is zeroed out. That is out the window. That is not in this 
new 5-year plan.
  My basic question on this disappointing announcement is simple: How 
does excluding all of these areas and how does cutting back the 
previous 5-year plan to half that amount best meet our national energy 
needs? It seems to me it is clear it does not. In fact, it eliminates 
incredible job and revenue opportunities as well as our ability to 
increase energy independence, to produce more domestic energy, all of 
which we desperately need to do.
  As the National Ocean Industries Association puts it:

       A 5-year plan for the Outer Continental Shelf is the most 
     important and defining action an administration takes in 
     providing new oil and gas resources for building economic 
     prosperity in this country.

  They are right. It is the single most defining action with regard to 
Outer Continental Shelf energy production.
  So with this action today, what is President Obama saying? What is 
his Interior Secretary saying? He is saying we are moving backward. He 
is saying we are going to do about half of what we were going to do in 
the previous 5-year plan which he canceled immediately upon taking 
office. That is very disappointing. It is disappointing for our energy 
picture. It is disappointing in terms of our need to lessen our 
reliance on foreign sources. It is also sadly disappointing in terms of 
the job picture because every lease sale that happens is thousands upon 
thousands of great American jobs to help build the economy and help to 
get us back out of this horrible recession.
  Finally, it is even deeply disappointing with regard to our challenge 
of lowering the deficit and debt. You know what. With energy 
production, the more we do, the more revenue we bring into the Federal 
Treasury to lower deficit and debt. In fact, after the Federal income 
tax, this is the single biggest category of Federal revenue into the 
Federal Treasury--royalties on domestic energy production.
  So it is domestic energy, it is great American jobs, and it is 
lowering the deficit and debt with more revenue. President Obama today 
has said no to all of that. He has taken an enormous step backward. He 
has said, compared to the previous 5-year plan, that we are only doing 
half. He said that we are shutting off the Atlantic coast, we are 
shutting off the Pacific coast, and much of the coast off Alaska.
  Today, I have written Secretary Salazar and expressed these concerns. 
I have asked the Secretary if they will reconsider this step backward 
because our country cannot afford it. We cannot afford it in energy 
terms. We cannot afford it in jobs terms. We cannot afford it in 
revenue terms when we need more revenue to lower deficit and debt. I 
will be following up aggressively on that letter, trying to understand 
the rationale behind this step backward and trying to get the Obama 
administration to reconsider.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.


                             Jobs Creation

  Mr. DURBIN. This last Sunday I was watching an ABC morning news show, 
and Christiane Amanpour was interviewing the Speaker of the House, John 
Boehner of Ohio. Speaker Boehner was asked a number of questions. The 
one he clearly wanted to focus on is what he called the Republican jobs 
program. He handed to Ms. Amanpour a laminated card which he said was 
the Republican jobs program that had passed the House of 
Representatives and was dying in the Senate. It has

[[Page 16860]]

never been called for passage. It struck me as odd because I missed 
that during the course of this last year that there was a Republican 
jobs program, and I was a little bit worried because we are looking for 
every opportunity we can to create jobs.
  So I came back and said to my staff, can you get a copy of this 
laminated card? I want to see what is written on it. They produced the 
card for me, and I took a look at it. As a result, I would have to say 
the Republican view on how to create jobs and move the economy forward 
is considerably different than my own and considerably different than 
the views of most Americans. What Republicans have proposed doing is 
eliminating rules and regulations. They believe that is what is holding 
back the growth of the American economy. One of the areas they 
particularly focused on is known as the Dodd-Frank bill, the Wall 
Street reform bill.
  Some of us are not suffering from political amnesia. We can recall 
what happened just a few years ago all across America when at the end 
of the Bush administration we faced some of the worst choices I have 
ever heard when we were presented an opportunity by the Chairman of the 
Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, and the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. 
Paulson, to literally bail out the Wall Street banks and major 
institutions to the tune of almost $800 billion from the mistakes they 
had made. So we were given an ultimatum: If we didn't do it, we could 
see a collapse of our American economy and the global economy. 
Reluctantly, many of us voted for that, believing that we had no 
choice. What we did was to send billions of dollars to banks on Wall 
Street that had made serious mistakes, creating credit default swaps 
and derivatives, creating offices in London that could skirt the 
American laws and, literally, hanging the American economy out to dry. 
The net result of that, of course, is that people suffered all across 
America. Individuals lost their savings and their retirements. Families 
were facing hardship when they were laid off and faced unemployment. 
Businesses closed and restructured and downsized. The whole economy 
suffered because of what was clearly wrongdoing on the part of our 
financial communities. As a result of that, President Obama said, We 
need to change the rules and laws in America so there will be adequate 
oversight so that we never get in this mess again.
  The first amendment on the Dodd-Frank bill in the Senate was offered 
by Senator Boxer of California, which said this is the end of too big 
to fail. We are never walking down this path again. So we put the 
financial institutions and corporations of America on notice that we 
were not going to bail them out in the future, should they make another 
colossal mistake, at the expense of workers and families and businesses 
across America.
  Then we went through the entire regulatory law as it related to Wall 
Street, including the stock exchanges and all of the exchanges across 
America, and said, What do we need to do to make certain there is 
transparency, to make certain the banks that were overleveraged and 
loaning far more than they should are in a position where they are 
fiscally sound, financially sound, and how do we put cops on the beat 
on Wall Street through the Securities and Exchange Commission and the 
Commodities Futures Trading Commission to guard against this ever 
occurring again? We offered that as Wall Street reform, with the 
support of President Obama, but with the support of only three 
Republican Senators: Senators Brown, Snowe, and Collins. The majority 
of Republican Senators and Congressmen would not support us in this 
effort. We passed it anyway. The President signed it. It is now being 
implemented, moving forward and, I think, long overdue.
  It turns out that is one of the first things the Republicans now want 
to eliminate in their effort to build the American economy. I can tell 
my colleagues we would be building the American economy on a foundation 
of sand if we did that. If we ignored the experience we had a few years 
ago when we were forced into this bailout situation, sending billions 
to the biggest bankers in America, and having them turn around and 
declare bonuses for their top officers and employees--if we ignore that 
reality and that history and say we were going to follow the Republican 
lead and eliminate this oversight of Wall Street, it would invite 
another economic disaster. Yet, that is one of the House Republican 
plans for rebuilding the American economy.
  The financial crisis of 2008 wiped out 8 million jobs in America. 
Twenty-four million Americans today are still suffering--unemployed or 
underemployed. Millions of families have lost their homes. A report in 
the Chicago newspapers this morning was stunning and troubling. Almost 
50 percent of the homes in our region in Chicago are under water. What 
it means is families have borrowed more in their mortgages than their 
home is currently valued. That is a troubling development, but it is a 
reality. It reflects what happened when the overanxious and 
overinflated real estate market got out of hand. We don't want that to 
happen again. If we are going to avoid it, we have to have appropriate 
oversight and regulation.
  Many families have seen their home values plummet, not just in 
Chicago but nationwide. Their retirement savings have been cut in half 
over the last 4 years. In Illinois and across America, solid, well-run 
companies, many in business for decades, have been shaken to the core 
for the lack of credit and the lack of customers.
  So what do our Republican colleagues offer as a solution? What is the 
Republican jobs plan? Incredibly, they have responded to America's 
economic crisis not by rethinking their deregulation dogma, but by 
doubling down. Let me explain.
  In addition to repealing Wall Street reform, Republicans are trying 
to change the most basic protections we have in America for clean air 
and pure drinking water. Think about this: The Republican majority in 
the House has voted 168 times this year--168 times--to undercut clean 
air and clean water laws and to block efforts to limit global warming, 
protect public health, protect the public lands we have been left by 
previous generations, and guard against things such as future 
oilspills. They voted 168 times just this year, and they are not 
finished.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have attached more than 
50 anti-environmental policy riders so far to spending bills for next 
year. They are unrelenting. I won't go into all of the environmental 
and public health protections the Republicans are trying to block. Let 
me focus on two. Republicans have used the Senate's expedited 
procedures to place bills blocking these two new rules directly on the 
Senate calendar rather than going through the regular order.
  It is their right to do that. They are saying, in effect, we don't 
have time for the normal rules. We don't have time to hear from 
scientists or the American people. We need to bury these rules right 
now.
  The first rule they want to delay is the boiler MACT rule. It is an 
acronym that stands for maximum achievable controlled technology. The 
boiler MACT rule would reduce the amount of mercury, dioxins, acid 
gases, and other toxic pollutants that can be emitted by large 
industrial boilers and solid waste incinerators. Is that the key to 
building jobs in America, large industrial boilers spewing more toxic 
chemicals into the air, solid waste incinerators burning without the 
regulations to protect the people who happen to live downwind? These 
chemicals can cause cancer, heart, lung, and kidney disease, damage to 
eyes and skin, impair brain development in children and babies, and 
learning ability, and they can kill people. That is a fact.
  The other new clean air rule in the crosshairs from the Republicans 
is the so-called cross-State air pollution rule. It would require 
significant reductions in two toxic chemicals--sulfur dioxide and 
nitrogen oxide--released by electric powerplants. These chemicals not 
only cause sickness and death, they can spread hundreds of miles 
downwind and across State lines.
  Many States can't develop new jobs and industries because they have 
reached their air pollution limits under national clean air standards, 
not because of what they are doing in their

[[Page 16861]]

States, but rather for the wind that is blowing from other States with 
pollution. It puts them over the limit for emissions that travel from 
old coal-burning powerplants in other States. That is not right, and it 
is not fair.
  The cross-State air pollution rule would set new limits on sulfur 
dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions and establish an emissions cap-
and-trade system for 31 Eastern States and the District of Columbia. It 
is a reasonable, market-based solution to a serious public health 
threat. The Republicans would abolish it.
  Both the boiler MACT rule and the cross-State air pollution rule 
replace rules that were developed by the EPA as far back as the Bush 
administration--rules that were stricken by the DC Circuit Court. In 
both cases, the court ordered the EPA to come up with a new rule. House 
Republicans have already passed a bill to delay these new air pollution 
quality standards for at least 15 months, and here in the Senate, they 
would delay them for up to 5 years. As for the cross-State air 
pollution rule, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has introduced a 
resolution of disapproval to kill it altogether so there will be no 
standard, so if a person happens to live downwind from a polluting 
powerplant and that person's State is trying to do its best to clean up 
its act, it is to no avail. The air pollution quality will be so bad in 
that State because of the neighboring State that people will face 
serious problems and restrictions in their own development.
  The House has taken an even more radical approach. They voted almost 
entirely along party lines, passing a Republican bill called the TRAIN 
Act, that would delay indefinitely the cross-State air pollution rule, 
and another lifesaving rule, the mercury and air toxics standard. The 
TRAIN Act would also overturn the legal requirement that EPA's public 
health rules be based on the best advice of scientists, not the demands 
of politicians or their donors. It is the most serious attack on the 
Clean Air Act since the law was passed 40 years ago under Republican 
President Richard M. Nixon.
  President Obama has already said he is going to veto any bills that 
would delay the new clean air rules. Our Republican colleagues know 
they don't have the votes to override his veto, so once again they are 
forcing the Senate to debate measures they know have no chance--zero 
chance--of becoming law.
  And that is the Republican jobs plan.
  Republicans say Federal agencies should analyze the cost of business 
of every new regulation, whether it is meant to protect against Wall 
Street recklessness, offshore oil disasters, lead-based toys, or killer 
cantaloupes. If a regulation hurts the corporate bottom line, the 
Republicans argue it shouldn't be passed.
  I have a counterproposal for my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle. Any politician who proposes deregulating an industry ought to be 
required to tell the public how much money deregulation would cost, how 
many jobs might be lost, how many lives may be cut short, how many 
children and other members of our families may end up in the hospital, 
and how much of our Nation's natural treasures may be scarred or 
destroyed. Let's have an honest assessment on both sides of the ledger.
  When I travel across my State, much like in the Presiding Officer's 
State, we have big cities and small towns. I go to schools and talk to 
kids, and usually they have the common questions--do you have a 
limousine, how much money do you make--things that kids ask. So I ask 
questions back to them. One question I have started asking in every 
school is the following: How many of you know someone who is suffering 
from asthma? Without fail, more than half the hands will go up. In 
Mount Sterling, IL, a small farm town down in Brown County in downstate 
Illinois, half the hands went up. I guarantee that in every classroom 
in the city of Chicago, more than half of the hands will go up. Asthma 
has become an epidemic in America and is related to many things, 
including the quality of the air we breathe. On the South Side of 
Chicago, it is hard to find a child who doesn't suffer from asthma.
  In 2007, the cost of asthma-related hospitalizations in Illinois 
totaled $280 million. The average stay costs $15,000 for an asthma 
case, and nearly 60 percent of those hospital costs were paid for by 
taxpayers through Medicaid and Medicare. Air pollution makes asthma 
worse. If we reduce air pollution we can reduce asthma attacks, asthma-
related deaths, and save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars a year 
just for the cost of treating that single disease. That is something we 
never hear when the disciples of deregulation start preaching.
  Here are some other facts we won't hear about deregulation from the 
deregulation devotees. The new boiler MACT rule will create jobs, not 
eliminate them. It would prevent between 2,500 and 6,500 premature 
deaths each year, and it would save between $22 billion and $54 billion 
a year in health care costs.
  The cross-State air pollution rule, which they would also abolish, 
would also net thousands of new jobs, prevent 400,000 cases of 
aggravated asthma and 34,000 premature deaths each year, and save $280 
billion in health care costs. In my State alone, the cross-State rule 
will save 1,500 lives a year and provide enough public health benefits 
to save our State $12 billion. Twelve billion dollars in Illinois--that 
is more than Illinois spent on health, hospitals, and highways combined 
in the year 2009.
  Deregulation is a costly gamble even for businesses that are 
deregulated. During the last administration, oil companies were allowed 
to self-regulate under the Bush administration. How did that work in 
the Gulf of Mexico with British Petroleum? The gulf oilspill is the 
worst industrial environmental disaster in U.S. history. 
Congratulations, self-regulators.
  Local businesses suffered $4 billion to $12 billion in lost income 
because of self-regulation by a major oil company. BP alone is likely 
to spend $40 billion in claims, fines, and other expenses from this 
historic, awful spill.
  Those who push for deregulation tell us environmental rules are job 
killers and nothing but a burden on businesses and consumers. They are 
wrong. Regulations that are well designed are, to borrow a phrase from 
our Republican friends, job creators. They can spur innovation and 
create new products, new jobs, even whole new industries. A study 
published by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University 
of Massachusetts-Amherst estimates that new air pollution rules for 
electric powerplants ``will provide long-term economic benefits across 
much of the United States in the form of highly skilled, well-paid jobs 
through infrastructure investment.''
  Specifically, researchers found that clean air investments could 
create 1.5 million new jobs in 2015 right here at home. Let me bring 
this story closer to home. Recently I made a trip in Illinois to a new 
coal-fired plant. It is a plant that is amazing. It is called the 
Prairie State Energy Campus and it is owned by a number of electric 
cooperatives. It has a $1 billion investment in the clean use of coal 
to produce electricity. They took a look at the law, and instead of 
hiring lawyers to fight it, they hired engineers to comply with it.
  The plant is up and running. It is a marvel to behold. Right across 
from this plant is a coal mine, and the coal that is drawn from that 
mine goes into this plant and meets all the specifications required 
today by the EPA. The people who are running this plant are not whining 
and crying and begging for relief. They rolled up their sleeves and 
built a plant much cleaner than anything that existed in the United 
States, and they are proving it can be profitable.
  I wish my Republican friends would come to the Prairie State Energy 
Campus. They should see and know that 4,000 union jobs were created for 
the construction of this plant, and they expect to have 500 permanent 
local jobs to boost the Illinois economy by $785 million a year with 
our own local coal.
  The campus includes two generators that will produce 1,600 megawatts 
of clean, low-cost energy for more than 2.5 million customers in the 
Midwest. It is going to go online by the end of this year.
  By using the latest technology, the plant's carbon dioxide emissions 
will

[[Page 16862]]

be 15 percent lower than what is typically discharged from U.S. coal-
fired powerplants.
  In addition, the plant is going to save an estimated 200,000 tons of 
carbon dioxide each year by using coal from an adjacent mine instead of 
mining it in some other place and shipping it to the site of the power 
generation.
  One hundred-sixty coal miners are working in the adjacent mine. I 
went there. It was not my first visit to a coal mine, but it is always 
an eye-opener to go in and see how they mine coal today. Two weeks ago, 
Prairie State announced plans to hire even more miners.
  In Illinois, incidentally, coal miners make a pretty decent wage, 
$65,000 a year. So these are good jobs, right here in America, mining 
coal to be used in a clean coal plant. It can be done. The Republicans 
ought to acknowledge it can be done, and new jobs are being created in 
the process, while we are reducing air pollution.
  In a recent survey, two out of three Americans say they support new 
clean air rules and oppose what the Republicans are trying to do in the 
name of job creation. Nearly 90 percent of all Americans--nearly 60 
percent of Republicans and conservatives, I might add--said Congress 
should not prevent the EPA from enforcing the new rules. I wish my 
Republican friends, who are so dead set on eliminating these standards 
for air and water pollution, would listen to the people across America 
who want cleaner air and purer drinking water and are willing to see 
reasonable regulations to reach those goals.
  The push to kill the new clean air rules is not coming from the 
American people. It is part of a huge power grab. The U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce and Republicans in Congress have launched an unprecedented 
antiregulation campaign. The Chamber is reportedly spending millions of 
dollars to push the message that regulations are job killers. Their 
goal is to roll back existing environmental, health, financial, and 
other regulatory protections and to block any new protections. They are 
using the American jobs crisis to try to push through an agenda that 
will increase our deficit, actually take away jobs in America, and 
cause thousands of Americans to get sick and some to die.
  Just cut taxes on millionaires and billionaires and get rid of 
government regulation and, they believe, we can get the economy humming 
again. That is their credo. If that were true, the last administration 
would have been the most prosperous in our history because that is the 
message and philosophy and agenda that guided the Bush administration. 
Instead, in the words of the Wall Street Journal--not exactly a 
Democratic publication--George Bush's administration produced ``the 
worst jobs record on record.''
  We have tried this. It does not work. We have seen this movie. We 
know how it ends. This notion of protecting millionaires from any taxes 
and repealing any laws related to the regulation of our economy did not 
work under the Bush administration and should not be tried again.
  The reason 2 million Americans are out of work has nothing to do with 
excessive financial or environmental regulation. If anything, our 
economy is hurting because we do not have the appropriate regulation in 
place now to avoid the excesses of the past.
  To say we cannot create jobs without allowing dangerous levels of 
toxic chemicals into our air and water is an absolutely false choice. 
We have to find an approach that protects the health of American 
families and balances the needs of business and is based on the reality 
of science.
  For 40 years, Democrats and Republicans used to work together on this 
agenda. We need to do it again. In the meantime, if our Republican 
colleagues want to create good middle-class jobs here at home, let's 
pass the President's American Jobs Act. This will not only create jobs, 
it will fund infrastructure and road repairs. It will cut payroll taxes 
for working families, saving the average family about $1,500 a year, 
and extend badly needed unemployment benefits for those out of work. It 
will keep hundreds of thousands of teachers in the classroom and cops 
and firefighters on the job in our neighborhoods and communities.
  That is the way to create good jobs. America does not need dirty 
water and dirty air to create good-paying jobs. I hope the Republican 
agenda, even if it is laminated on a card passed out by Speaker John 
Boehner, will realize we can do better in this country by not 
compromising our public health and the great Nation in which we live.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Veterans Support

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, I would like to take a moment to honor 
and thank those who have earned the noble title of ``veteran.''
  The 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month marked the end of 
World War I. Since then, this date has been celebrated first as 
Armistice Day and now as Veterans Day, but no matter what we call it, 
it serves the purpose of honoring our Nation's heroes--those who have 
served in the military, our veterans.
  As the son of a World War II veteran who served as a waist gunner on 
B-17s, I grew up in a family with values rooted in military tradition. 
My father remained in the military until he retired from the Air Force 
as a master sergeant after 20 years of service. At an early age, my 
brother, my sister, and I were taught about the sacrifices our men and 
women in uniform make. Growing up in this environment gave us an 
understanding of the unique challenges military families face--an 
understanding that guides my efforts today.
  My mom would continually remind me of my responsibility as a public 
servant to keep our promises to those who served our Nation in uniform. 
Up until her recent passing, one of the first questions she would ask 
whenever I saw her would inevitably be: What have you done for veterans 
lately?
  I was always able to answer that question with a clean conscience 
while serving in the House and now in the Senate. Despite how divided 
we can be on other issues, Democrats and Republicans come together--
more often than not--to pass policies that will enhance the quality of 
life for both our veterans and their families.
  Today, in the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, we are working to 
secure the benefits our veterans deserve and improve existing benefits 
to meet the needs of more than 23 million American veterans, including 
257,000 who call Arkansas home.
  It is most important for all of us to remember the reason we are 
working to improve veterans' benefits: the men and women of our Armed 
Forces and their families. Through their selfless sacrifice, we are 
protected from our enemies. They make the United States a safer place 
to live. They have heard our Nation's call and met the challenge with 
their service. It is now up to us to ensure our veterans have access to 
all the opportunities our great Nation has to offer.
  Taking care of our veterans is the responsibility of every American.
  It is important that we all continue to serve our veterans and 
reflect on those who served in conflicts around the globe, as well as 
those who are serving today in support of the war on terror in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Let's also reflect on the sacrifices of those who have 
given their last full measure of devotion.
  In September I came to the Senate floor to honor the lives of five 
Arkansans who were killed in action this year. Last week, sadly, we 
lost a sixth member from Arkansas this year, SPC Sarina N. Butcher, who 
followed in the footsteps of her grandfather and brother and joined the 
military in April 2010. As a member of the Oklahoma National Guard, she 
served as an automated logistical specialist, but her ultimate goal was 
to become a nurse.

[[Page 16863]]

  At the tender age of 19, this Crossett, AR, native and mother to a 
beautiful little girl was killed in an IED explosion in Afghanistan on 
November 1. We are grateful for her service and her sacrifice. We are 
forever indebted to her and to every American who has worn the uniform 
and sacrificed their own safety and security for that of the American 
people.
  Every day the men and women of our Armed Forces stand in defense of 
our Nation and our cherished way of life. They do so regardless of 
costs, fully aware they may be called to pay the ultimate price for 
their country.
  This week, communities across the country gather to express our 
undying gratitude for those who have worn our Nation's uniform. Let's 
always honor the service of those who have served and those on the 
front lines as we address the important challenges facing the Nation.
  To all of our veterans and their families, I say thank you on behalf 
of a grateful nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.


                             Postal Service

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, there are two issues I would like to 
touch upon this afternoon which I think are significantly important to 
the people of our country.
  On Sunday, 2 days ago, I held a town meeting in Montpelier, VT, on 
the issue of saving the Postal Service. Frankly, I was stunned by the 
number of people who came. As you know, Vermont is not the largest 
State in the Nation, and yet we had about 350 people crowding into the 
cafeteria at Montpelier High School to say very clearly that they do 
not want to see the Postal Service dismembered. They do not want to see 
policies develop that will create a death spiral for the post offices 
of America.
  We heard a lot of testimony from many people, and the bottom line is 
that everybody in that room thought it was terribly wrong that in the 
midst of a recession the post office is talking about cutting 120,000 
good-paying jobs in our country. It didn't make sense to anybody in 
that room.
  I find it ironic that at a moment when, appropriately enough--and I 
strongly support the effort--we are talking about creating jobs for 
veterans who are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan, with high 
unemployment rates, many of the people who work in the post office are, 
in fact, veterans. On one hand, we are trying to create jobs for 
veterans; on the other hand, if the Postal Service does what it wants, 
we may end up losing 120,000 jobs, including many veterans.
  I wanted to touch on some of the important issues that I think we 
have to deal with regarding the Postal Service. I want to just go over 
a letter that Senators Leahy, Gillibrand, Wyden, and myself sent to the 
chairpeople and ranking members of the Committee on Homeland Security 
and the subcommittee as well; that is, Senators Lieberman, Collins, 
Carper, and Scott Brown. These are the points we made in the letter. 
These are points that will be incorporated into legislation that I will 
be introducing this week--legislation that I think is commonsense 
legislation, legislation that will help us create a business model so 
the Postal Service can be successful, legislation that will save 
120,000 jobs.
  This is what we wrote in the letter to the Homeland Security 
Committee. A lot of people don't know this. They say correctly that the 
Postal Service is having problems because we are in a digital age, and 
first class mail is going down because people are e-mailing. That is 
true.
  Second, we are in the midst of a recession and many businesses are 
facing problems. But the most important financial problems facing the 
post office today are not those issues; they are the issues of 
accounting approaches that have done great disservice to the Postal 
Service.
  The U.S. Postal Service uniquely has been forced to prefund 75 years' 
worth of future retiree health benefits in just 10 years. There is no 
other agency of government that comes close to that onerous 
requirement, nor do we believe there are any companies in the private 
sector that have been asked to do that. We are asking the Postal 
Service to come up with a huge amount of money and put it into a fund 
in a way that no other agency of government--and we think no other 
private company--has been forced to do.
  This mandate costs the Postal Service between $5.4 billion and $5.8 
billion per year, and it accounts for 100 percent of the Postal 
Service's $20 billion debt. Without that onerous requirement, the USPS 
would still have significant borrowing authority with the U.S. Treasury 
to ride out the tough economic times we are seeing in the recession.
  Furthermore, it is not only future retiree health benefits they are 
being asked to come up with and fund, but the USPS needs to recoup the 
overpayments it has made to the CSRS and FERS, the Federal retirement 
system. According to studies by the Hay Group and the Segal Company, 
USPS has overpaid the CSRS by between $50 billion and $75 billion. If 
we look at those two issues, if we can deal with those issues and treat 
the Postal Service fairly, we will have gone a very long way toward 
addressing the immediate financial crisis the Postal Service is facing.
  Second, what we want to be very careful about as we develop business 
models for the future is to not start cutting, cutting, cutting, and 
creating a Postal Service that will no longer have customer support and 
lay the groundwork for literally a death spiral and the destruction and 
demise of the Postal Service in years to come.
  I come from a rural State. Post Offices are extremely important to 
the people of small towns above and beyond getting mail. They become, 
in a sense, in some ways, the identifying feature of a small town. It 
is where people come together and talk. It is very important, in my 
mind, that we not start cutting pell-mell hundreds and hundreds of 
small post offices in rural America. I think the legislation we will be 
offering this week addresses that problem in a sensible and reasonable 
way.
  Second of all, the Postal Service can never be competitive if when 
you drop a letter into a postal box it takes 5 days for that letter to 
get to its destination. One of the ideas that the Postal Service is 
talking about is making very significant cuts in what they call 
processing centers. That is where the mail is gathered and forwarded. 
If we cut those centers--in my State, we have two that are on the line, 
Essex Junction and Wright River Junction. If we cut those and other 
processing centers all over the country, what will happen is that when 
we drop that letter into a mailbox, it could take up to 5 days for that 
letter to reach its destination. When we have that poor service, people 
are simply going to stop using the post office, and that continues the 
death spiral. People are not going to want to use the service.
  Thirdly, and in the same vein, the Postal Service is now talking 
about cutting Saturday delivery. Again, that means there are a whole 
lot of folks who get prescription drugs on Saturday, and a whole lot of 
people who get a magazine or newspapers on Saturday--if we cut that 
back, people are going to say: No, I don't want to deal with the post 
office anymore. It is not worth it.
  So it seems to me the choice we have is to do what the Postal Service 
is now talking about; that is, cut and eliminate rural post offices, 
end Saturday mail delivery, cut and eliminate significant numbers of 
processing centers, which will slow down the delivery of mail--that is 
one approach--and lay off, by the way, some 120,000 American workers, 
including many veterans. That is a very bad idea.
  The other approach is to come up with a business model that 
recognizes that we are in the 21st century; that the post office has to 
evolve and change and give the post office the freedom to compete in a 
way that addresses the needs of its customers. I will give an example.
  The Presiding Officer comes from a rural State, as I do. A lot of 
people in our States want to get fishing licenses or hunting licenses. 
If they walked into

[[Page 16864]]

a post office in rural New Hampshire or rural Vermont and said: Hey, 
can I fill out an application to get a fishing or hunting license, the 
post office would say they we don't do that, they are not permitted to 
do that.
  If an individual literally wants to walk into a post office--and 
postmasters tell me this happens every day--and say: I have a letter, 
and I want it notarized, they may be a notary public, but they are not 
allowed by law to notarize that.
  The issue of the digital revolution is obviously impacting post 
offices not only in the United States but around the world. Other 
countries are looking at these challenges in a way that we are not. I 
will give one more example.
  For a lot of reasons--legal and otherwise--there are people who would 
like to see a document delivered to somebody in writing and not simply 
in e-mail. There are post offices now in other countries where one can 
send an e-mail, say, from Vermont to California, it gets printed, and 
on the same day that document gets delivered to a business or a home. 
The post office in America is not allowed to do that. So by law our 
post office is restricted from entering the 21st century.
  If somebody walks into a post office now and says they want to print 
up 10 copies of a document, so where is the copying machine, the 
postmaster would say they don't have one, that they are not allowed to 
have a copy machine.
  There are a lot of ideas out there that people are talking about as 
to how the Postal Service can address the needs of customers in the 
21st century.
  Last, but not least, on this issue, one of the people at the town 
meeting on Sunday got up and said: I want to say this. In our town, we 
know our letter carrier very well. Our letter carrier noticed that mail 
remained in the mail box of an elderly person, and the mailman got on 
the phone and called the police department because he suspected that 
something was wrong.
  It turns out that something was wrong and that person's life was 
saved. I expect that happens all over this country. We have hundreds of 
thousands of letter carriers who know people, interact with people. 
They do play and can more so play an important role in providing 
services.
  Bottom line, Madam President, I think it is a bad idea in the midst 
of a recession to slash 120,000 jobs, including jobs of many of our 
veterans. Second, I do believe if we use our brains and entrepreneurial 
spirit, we can create a post office that is very relevant and can be 
profitable in the 21st century.
  We will be introducing legislation addressing all of these issues, 
and I hope very much that my colleagues will cosponsor that 
legislation.


                              Tax Fairness

  Madam President, there is another issue I want to talk about, and 
that is the work of the supercommittee. This country has a 
recordbreaking deficit. It has a $14-plus trillion national debt, and I 
think all of the American people--or virtually all--want to see the 
supercommittee come up with a proposal which makes sense and which 
helps us address our deficit crisis. My suggestion to the 
supercommittee is that they, in fact, can do that by simply doing what 
the American people want them to do.
  I have heard some of the ideas out there, where members of the 
supercommittee are talking about cutting Social Security, which has not 
contributed one nickel to our deficit and has a $2\1/2\ trillion 
surplus, and another idea being that we have to cut Medicare and 
Medicaid. Well, we have 50 million people without any health insurance. 
I don't think it is a brilliant idea to throw more and more people off 
health insurance. So I think those are bad ideas, and every single poll 
I have seen tells me the American people agree those are dumb ideas.
  Meanwhile, I have seen and talked to a whole lot of people who are 
asking me this question: How is it, when the wealthiest people in this 
country are becoming much wealthier, when the effective tax rates of 
the top 2 percent are the lowest in decades, that we are not asking 
those people who are doing phenomenally well to start paying their fair 
share of taxes?
  This is not just a progressive idea and it is not just a Democratic 
idea. The polls suggest that all across the political spectrum, the 
American people are saying: Yes, it is right and appropriate that the 
wealthiest people in this country start paying their fair share of 
taxes.
  I will just mention an ABC News-Washington Post October 5, 2011, poll 
reflecting that 75 percent of Independents support raising taxes on 
millionaires. In that same poll, 57 percent of Republicans support 
raising taxes on millionaires. In that same poll, 55 percent of tea 
party supporters--supposedly the extreme rightwing who want to abolish 
Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, which turns out not to be 
the case at all--agree with raising taxes on millionaires. According to 
a June 2011 Washington Post poll, 72 percent of Americans support 
raising taxes on incomes over $250,000.
  So I think we know what the American people want. They do not want, 
in poll after poll, to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid 
because they know how vitally important those programs are to the well-
being of tens of millions of Americans. For example, according to a 
February 2011 NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll, 77 percent of 
Americans are opposed to cutting Social Security to reduce the deficit.
  So where are we as a country? We are pretty united. We are in 
agreement. What the American people are saying is that the rich are 
getting richer, their effective real tax rates have gone down, and they 
have to pay more in taxes to help us through deficit reduction and to 
create jobs.
  The American people also understand there are huge corporate 
loopholes out there, with oil companies making money hand over fist and 
getting huge tax breaks and Wall Street getting huge tax breaks. We 
lose $100 billion a year because large companies and the wealthy put 
their money into tax havens in the Cayman Islands, in Bermuda, and in 
Panama. The people of this country know that is wrong.
  I hope very much that the supercommittee will do nothing more than 
listen to the American people. That is all. If they do that, they will 
do the right thing. They will not suggest that we cut Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid, but they will suggest that the wealthiest 
people in this country start paying their fair share of taxes. They 
will recommend that we do away with these outrageous loopholes large 
profitable corporations enjoy. If they do that, we will, in fact, come 
up with an agreement that will help us reduce the deficit, and we will 
win the support of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WICKER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning 
business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Human Rights in Russia

  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.

[[Page 16865]]

  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--


[[Page 16866]]

     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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise to discuss S.J. Res. 27, a 
resolution of disapproval of the cross-State air pollution rule. I 
appreciate my friend, the Senator from Kentucky, for bringing his 
concerns forward through this resolution. However, this is an issue I 
have been extensively involved in as New Hampshire's former attorney 
general, and I believe this resolution is misguided. This issue 
requires a balanced approach, and when looking at environmental 
regulations, we must review each on a case-by-case basis. In that vein, 
I cannot support this resolution.
  The cross-State air pollution rule is designed to control emissions 
of air pollution that cause air quality problems in downwind States--
and New Hampshire is a downwind State--and is estimated to reduce 
powerplant sulfur dioxide emissions by 73 percent and emissions from 
nitrogen oxides by 54 percent from 2005 levels.
  It is important to note that similar pollution standards have been in 
place for 6 years--first implemented by the Bush administration in 
2005--and many utilities have already taken steps to comply with the 
rule.
  The rule encourages the use of the best technology available so 
downwind States such as New Hampshire will be able to achieve national 
clean air standards. Without this rule in place, New Hampshire will be 
unable to achieve national clean air standards due to air pollution 
that is outside the State's regulatory control and comes from other 
States.
  In New Hampshire, we have a long, bipartisan tradition of working to 
advance commonsense, balanced environmental protections. That is the 
perspective from which I approach this resolution. From my time as the 
State's attorney general, I understand well that New Hampshire is one 
of several downwind States in what is infamously known as ``America's 
tailpipe.'' For far too long, air pollution generated by Midwestern 
coal-fired powerplants has been allowed to flow into the jetstream 
unabated and to settle in New England, leading to diminished air 
quality in my home State of New Hampshire.
  As attorney general, I worked to protect Granite State residents and 
our environment from air pollutants generated by Midwest coal-fired 
powerplants. The reality is that air pollution does not stop at State 
borders, and New Hampshire should not be the tailpipe for pollutants 
from out-of-State powerplants. It is a matter of common sense to ensure 
that one State's emissions of pollutants do not unduly harm another 
State's air quality.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution of disapproval.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to express support for the pending 
legislation on a critical issue that addresses the burdensome cost of 
compliance with the Tax Code. H.R. 674 is modeled after bipartisan 
legislation Senator Brown and I introduced earlier this year to repeal 
the 3 percent withholding on government contractors that was enacted in 
2005.
  I thank Senator Brown for his steadfast and persistent leadership on 
this issue as well as Senators Ayotte, Barrasso, Blunt, Burr, 
Chambliss, Inhofe, Johanns, Boozman, and Risch who are also cosponsors 
of the legislation.
  The 3 percent withholding provision mandates that Federal, State, and 
local governments withhold 3 percent of their payments to private 
contractors, including Medicare provider payments, farm payments, 
defense contracts and certain grants.
  According to the National Federation of Independent Business, ``the 3 
percent withholding provision puts both an administrative burden on all 
parties involved and a strain on the daily operating cash flow of the 
businesses entering into these contracts.'' This provision would deduct 
3 percent from those payments and send the cash to the IRS for what can 
be considered a downpayment on taxes. The following year, absent any 
outstanding tax liability, the contractors, or doctors in the case of 
Medicare, would then get the payment rebated to them. This forces 
legitimate small businesses who pay their taxes in a timely manner to 
loan the government 3 percent of a total contract.
  The American Medical Association supports repealing the 3 percent 
withholding because it is an additional tax on physicians who already 
are facing a 29.5 percent cut in Medicare payments on January 1 of next 
year. According to the AMA Physician Practice Information Survey, 78 
percent of office-based physicians in the United States are in 
practices of nine physicians and under, with the majority of those 
physicians being in either solo practice or in practices of between two 
and four physicians. Withholding 3 percent of Medicare payments for 
services furnished by physician practices will create a difficult cash 
flow problem for physician practices as small businesses.
  This is another example of good intentions having unintended 
consequences and originated as a result of very legitimate efforts to 
address the tax gap--the difference between what is owed in taxes and 
the amount that the IRS is able to collect.
  At first glance, it may seem reasonable to withhold a portion of 
payments to contractors, until they pay taxes on the earnings. However, 
the problem with this approach is that it assumes that contractors will 
not pay their taxes and, regrettably, small businesses suffer as a 
result of this faulty assumption.
  Because this mandate withholds 3 percent of payments to contractors, 
it is a serious problem for small businesses for whom such a 
withholding from cash-flow would make bidding on contracts cost 
prohibitive. As such, this mandate threatens to stifle the economy at a 
time when we cannot afford any unnecessary obstacles in the road to 
recovery.
  Everyone agrees that Americans should pay their taxes in full and 
none of us supports tax cheats, yet there are already extensive 
penalties including monetary and even criminal for tax delinquency. The 
unfortunate fact is that the 3 percent withholding provision will cost 
far more to implement than will be collected in tax revenue.
  As a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, I remain 
committed to exploring alternative means to ensure government 
contractors are indeed paying their taxes in full while working to 
mitigate the costs of compliance. On November 1, the Senate passed the 
Agriculture appropriations bill which included a provision prohibiting 
agencies from awarding contracts to companies with unpaid Federal 
taxes.
  Additionally, that legislation barred any contract over $5 million 
from being awarded if a company cannot certify it has paid its taxes in 
the last 3 years. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has 
criticized this provision as having ``unintended consequences'' and 
that the bill as written would hurt contracting decisions. I believe 
the legislation should have gone even further and forced all 
contractors to certify that their taxes are up to date. The bottom line 
is the Federal Government should not be contracting with those who fail

[[Page 16867]]

to meet their tax obligations and it is imperative this administration 
develop a coordinated process to not only punish fraudulent contractors 
but ensure tax compliance before contracts are awarded.
  That said, our country is in no place to stifle already anemic 
economic recovery and disappointing job growth numbers that have 
plagued the Nation for 3 years now. According to data released Friday 
by Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate remains 
persistently high at 9 percent.
  About 45 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for at least 
6 months--a level previously unseen in the six decades since World War 
II. At a time when 14 million Americans are still unemployed, and have 
been so for the longest period since record keeping began in 1948, our 
government should be taking every possible step to ease the burden on 
job creators. We need to offer the American people solutions that help 
grow jobs, not provisions that prevent it.
  Compliance with this law will impose billions of dollars of cost on 
both the public and private sectors, with a disproportionate impact on 
small businesses. These compliance costs will far exceed projected tax 
collections.
  For instance, just one Federal agency, the Department of Defense, 
estimated that it would cost over $17 billion in the first 5 years to 
comply, and the revenue estimate in 2005 projected that only $6.977 
billion would be collected over a 10 year window.
  Even if that DOD estimate is inflated, as some charge, the 
Congressional Budget Office projects costs of $12 billion just to 
implement this provision at the Federal level. There are similar costs 
imposed across all of the Nation's State and local governments, making 
this provision simply an unfunded mandate on State and local 
governments. This is a case of spending a dollar to collect a dime, 
which is counterproductive for addressing the Nation's deficits.
  As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business, I have 
heard from many businesses across the country that the 3 percent 
withholding amount will exceed their profit on a given contract and 
will prevent them from being able to make payroll, forcing them to 
borrow from banks just to pay their employees.
  This is not the way to encourage jobs and business growth but rather 
the way to stifle it. This 3 percent withholding provision would 
increase the tax and regulatory burdens on our businesses--precisely 
the wrong policy potion for these troubled times.
  Given the record deficits and budgetary crisis in this country, it is 
imperative that the Congress find funds to offset the repeal provision. 
The President and the House of Representatives both agreed that a 
proper way to pay for repeal would be to retract a poorly drafted 
provision from the new health care law--a provision that would have 
added people who do not meet the income requirements on to the already-
strained Medicaid Program which provides health care to the indigent.
  As a strong supporter of Medicaid, I know it is important to keep the 
program narrowly targeted at those populations most in need, and if 
doing so in this case allows us to repeal the damaging 3 percent 
withholding rule, then so much the better.
  At a time when the American people are extremely frustrated with the 
partisan gridlock and Congress' inability to pass meaningful 
legislation, this bipartisan bill would provide small businesses with 
much needed certainty and relief.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to 
proceed to H.R. 674 be adopted; that after the motion is adopted, the 
majority leader be recognized to offer amendment No. 927 on behalf of 
Senator Tester and others; that when the Senate resumes consideration 
of the bill on Wednesday, November 9, Senator McCain or his designee be 
recognized to offer a second-degree amendment, No. 928; that no other 
amendments, points of order, or motions be in order to either amendment 
or the bill prior to the votes other than budget points of order and 
the applicable motions to waive; that following morning business on 
Wednesday, November 9, the Senate proceed to the consideration of the 
motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 6, as provided under the previous order; 
that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate resume 
consideration of H.R. 674; further, that at 10 a.m. Thursday, November 
10, the Senate proceed to the consideration of the motion to proceed to 
S.J. Res. 27 as provided under the previous order; that at noon, the 
Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 6 and 
there be up to 5 minutes of debate, equally divided between the two 
leaders or their designees, prior to a vote on the motion to proceed to 
S.J. Res. 6; that following the vote, the Senate then proceed to vote 
on the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 27; that there be 2 minutes 
equally divided between the votes; that if either or both motions to 
proceed are agreed to, then further debate and votes on the joint 
resolutions be deferred until 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, November 15, with 
all other provisions of the previous orders regarding the joint 
resolutions remaining in effect; that at 2:15 on Thursday, November 10, 
the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 674; that there be up to 15 
minutes of debate on the bill and amendments to run concurrently, with 
the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; 
that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote 
in relation to the amendments to H.R. 674 in the following order: 
McCain amendment No. 928 and Reid for Tester amendment No. 927; that 
the McCain and Reid for Tester amendments be subject to a 60-vote 
affirmative vote threshold; that upon the disposition of the 
amendments, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to 
vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended; that upon 
disposition of H.R. 674, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to 
invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2354, the Energy and 
Water appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________