Floor Statements

Mr. President, there is no question that the premier issue for most Americans is jobs and the economy. It is the issue that is on the minds of all Americans. They are pocketbook issues that impact middle-class Americans all across the country.

For the past 3\1/2\ years, the President and the Democrats here in the Senate have failed to provide the leadership America needs to make a stronger middle class. Middle-class Americans continue to face a bleak economic picture on this President's watch. We have seen gas prices more than double--the highest level in September that we have ever seen for the month of September. Middle-class income is down by nearly $4,000 since the President took office. Just last week, a Kaiser Family Foundation study came out indicating worker health insurance costs have increased by 29 percent since the President took office. The President promised to lower health care costs by $2,500 per family. Instead, average family premiums have increased by over $3,000 since he took office.

Republicans have solutions to grow the economy and to help the middle class, strengthen the middle class. We support commonsense solutions such as increasing domestic energy, reforming our Tax Code, and stopping the job-killing regulations that are killing our small businesses. We hope to have the opportunity to work on those solutions for America's future.

That is correct, it has always been my intent, and it is shared by the Congressional Budget Office, and the Secretary of Transportation, who will have the primary responsibility of implementing this legislation.

According to the CBO, ``enacting S. 1956 would have no significant impact on the federal budget.''

I ask unanimous consent at this time to have their entire report printed in the Record.

Additionally, at a recent Commerce Committee hearing on my bill, Secretary LaHood was asked if any possible action of implementation could ``include the U.S. government paying EU authorities directly or compensating the operators for any fines incurred for non-compliance with EU ETS.''

He responded, ``We have absolutely no intention of asking the U.S. taxpayer to pay any ETS fines incurred for non-compliance with EU ETS, directly or indirectly.''

I appreciate Senator Cardin and Lautenberg for coming forward and working with me to clarify this point, and I thank them both for releasing their hold.

I am happy that we have been able to come to a bipartisan agreement on my bill and look forward to final passage today in the Senate and hopefully soon by the House of Representatives so we can send a clear message to the EU that ETS is arbitrary, unfair, and a clear violation of international law.

Yes.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Paige McPherson of Sturgis, SD, who earned a bronze medal in Taekwondo at the 2012 Olympic Games in London, England, this summer. Despite facing the popular British world champion in the first round of competition in London, Paige fought her way to the bronze medal in the women's 67- kilogram division. Paige possesses an outstanding record of success in Taekwondo, beginning at a young age and, most recently, as a silver medalist at the 2011 Pan American Games. She was also a successful member of the U.S. National Team in 2009, 2010, and 2011.

Growing up in Sturgis, Paige pursued excellence in many areas. Paige is a passionate dancer and an active member of her church, pursuits which, along with her family and friends, helped her accomplish the amazing feat of earning an Olympic medal. She graduated from Black Hills Classical Christian Academy in 2009, at which point she was already nationally recognized in Taekwondo, and went on to attend Miami-Dade College in Miami, FL. Some of her most notable awards include 2007 Outstanding Female Athlete at the Senior National Championships, 2008 Chris Canning Award of Excellence Winner, and 2009 Outstanding Female Athlete at the USAT National Championships.

Paige should be extremely proud of her remarkable accomplishments. I am more than happy to extend my congratulations on her Olympic medal and to offer congratulations on behalf of the State of South Dakota. We are extremely proud and wish her continued success in the years to come.

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

Mr. President, the Senate is sort of wrapping up its business, if you will, until after the election. It is ironic, in a way, that there are so many big issues in front of us as a nation--so many challenges--yet we are talking about things I am sure are important, but, once again, we are punting, kicking the can down the road on all the big crises in front of us as a nation.

I have to say that never before has a President and a Senate done so little when the Nation's challenges are so great. People have talked about the fiscal cliff repeatedly, and people have talked about the fiscal crisis in which we find ourselves in terms that I think ought to frighten all Americans. It certainly ought to frighten Members of Congress when we talk about the most predictable crisis in American history, probably in human history. It is not like it is any surprise what is going to happen. We are repeatedly reminded by all of the experts that if we don't deal with this issue of the fiscal cliff, it will have devastating, catastrophic impacts on our economy, on our national security, on our country, and on the American people. Yet we are not addressing it and doing what we should be doing to avert the disaster ahead of us, the fiscal cliff that faces us on January 1 of this next year.

It is not as though there isn't already a lot of evidence that we have big problems. We just crossed the $16 trillion level in terms of our debt. We have added over $1 trillion of debt every single year now for the past 4 years, since President Obama has taken office. That is $50,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. Everybody in America--man, woman, or child--now has $50,000 as their share of Federal debt. So it is a fiscal crisis unlike anything we have seen before, and it has, as I said, been predicted.

The Congressional Budget Office has said if we don't deal with the fiscal cliff, it will plunge the economy into recession. They have suggested that it will reduce by 2.9 percent the size of the economy. We actually will have a contraction of the economy in the first 6 months of next year.

They have also projected it will drive unemployment above 9 percent. Granted, we are over 8 percent today. We have been at 8 percent now for 43 consecutive months. That is the longest stretch in history. In fact, if we go back to the time the Bureau of Labor Statistics started keeping unemployment data and we add up the data for the 11 Presidents from Harry Truman through the end of the George W. Bush administration--about 60 years--there were 39 months where the unemployment rate exceeded 8 percent. That is 11 Presidents in about 60 years of history where we have had unemployment above 8 percent.

We have now had unemployment above 8 percent for 43 consecutive months. So 39 months in the first 60 years since they started keeping data, and 43 months now in a row under the current administration.

We have the Federal Reserve telling us if we don't deal with our fiscal crisis, the economy is going to soften next year.

We have ratings agencies such as Moody's suggesting that if we don't have a plan in place not only to deal with the sequestration that is going to occur at the end of the year in a way that is paid for but also to deal with the longer, structural problem--the debt and deficits crisis we have in this country--we are facing a downgrade in our credit rating.

You had the World Economic Forum come out just recently with their assessment about the world's most competitive economies. Back in January of 2009 when President Obama took office, the World Economic Forum found that the United States had the No. 1 most competitive economy in the world. In terms of global competitiveness, the United States was ranked No. 1. Now we have dropped. We had dropped to fifth, and this year, just recently, as I mentioned, when they came out with their current rankings, the United States had dropped down to seventh. So in a short 4-year timespan, we have gone from first in terms of global competitiveness down to seventh. That does not speak well for the steps that are being taken here in this country to make America competitive in the global economy, to deal with the problems of spending and debt and the fiscal cliff that is ahead of us.

It is interesting to note that at the World Economic Forum--what did they point to in terms of their analysis?

Why did they come to the conclusion that the United States had fallen from first in January of 2009 when the President took office to seventh here this year? Well, they pointed out spending, debt, taxes, regulations, redtape--all the things that come from Washington, DC; all the things that are controlled by policies here in Washington; the regulations that continue to spin out of various government agencies that drive up the cost of doing business in this country, that make us less competitive; the higher taxes that are being assessed on our economy in so many different ways; and, of course, all the taxes that are going to take hold, take effect as part of ObamaCare, the health care law that was passed a couple years ago, that begin to kick in. So you are going to have higher taxes. You have the redtape associated with doing business in this country and the bureaucracies, the mandates, the requirements that are imposed on our small businesses and our job creators. And then, of course, as I said, you have this massive amount of debt that hangs like a cloud over our economy. These are all factors that contribute to this assessment that has basically downgraded the United States from the No. 1 position in terms of global competitiveness to No. 7.

So the question before the house is, What can we do? What should we be doing to avert that crisis? Well, it strikes me, at least, that it starts with having a plan and working together, having the President step forward with a plan that would make sure our economy does not go into a recession next year; that makes sure the defense cuts that would occur under the sequester--which are terribly disproportionate relative to the size of the defense budget as a percentage of our total budget-- do not harm our national security interests; figure out ways to solve that problem; reduce spending in other areas to redistribute the cuts. Defense represents only 20 percent of the entire budget, but it gets 50 percent of the cuts under this across-the-board sequester that would take effect on January 1 of next year.

Our national security experts and our military leadership have said that if these cuts take effect, we will have the smallest Army since the beginning of World War II. You have to go back to 1940 to find a time when we would have had an Army that is that small. You have to go back to 1915, before World War I, to find a time when we would have had a Navy that is as small as it will be if these cuts take effect in the number of ships we have at our disposal. And we would have the smallest Air Force, literally, in the history of the Air Force.

That is what our military leadership is telling us will happen if these devastating cuts take effect. You have had the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, the President's own Secretary, say that this would be catastrophic, that these cuts would be disastrous. You have the service chiefs saying the very same thing.

So we have all this right in front of us, staring us in the face, and instead of dealing with that crisis we are putting bills on the floor that really do not have near the consequence--as I said, I am sure important; I am not denigrating at all any of the legislation the Senate is considering, but it seems to be right now geared a lot more toward the election than it is about saving the country and doing the things that are necessary to avoid this cliff that is ahead of us and all the disastrous consequences that come with it.

Now, just again, a point of fact, and I mentioned this before. We have had now 43 months of 8 percent unemployment or above. We have 23 million Americans who are either unemployed or underemployed. We have seen that the data continues to suggest how sluggish our economy is, the impact it is having on the middle class in this country. In fact, middle-class Americans are continually hit by continued bad news.

You start with the fact that since President Obama took office, average incomes have gone down almost $4,000. Added on top of that is the fact that fuel prices have literally doubled in that timeframe--now more than doubled. In fact, we hit, in the month of September--this month--the highest fuel prices ever for the month of September. That is a cost that is borne by middle-class Americans. One of the biggest costs, biggest expenses in their lives is dealing with getting their kids to and from school, getting to work, taking care of the day-to-day activities for which they are responsible. The cost of fuel is a very important pocketbook issue for middle-class Americans. Then you have news the Kaiser Foundation came out with that says health care premiums have gone up by 29 percent. That is despite all the assertions when ObamaCare was being debated that it would drive health care costs down. In fact, the President, as he campaigned for office 4 years ago, talked about bringing the premium for an average family down by $2,500. Well, the opposite has happened. According to the Kaiser Foundation, health insurance costs have gone up by 29 percent. Instead of coming down by $2,500 for the average family, they have gone up by over $3,000 for the average family. So whether it is health care costs, fuel costs, tuition costs, which, by the way, have gone up by 25 percent, or average incomes that have gone down, you see this worsening picture for average Americans. All of that will be dramatically complicated by what is going to happen on January 1 if we do not take action to avert that crisis.

What happens on January 1? As I mentioned, you have an across-the- board cut. It is across the board in the sense that everything gets hit, but not everything gets hit proportionately. Defense, as I said, gets 50 percent of the cuts although it represents only 20 percent of the budget. You are going to have all these cuts that take effect that hurt the national security budget and the jobs that go with that, but you also have taxes going up. Tax rates go up on January 1, which will absolutely devastate job creation in this country if they are allowed to take effect. In fact, the total amount of tax increases that will hit us on January 1, if Congress does not take action, over a 10- year period is about $5 trillion--about $5 trillion over a 10-year period in additional taxes.

Even if you say, as the President does, that you want taxes to go up just on people who make more than $200,000 a year or couples who make more than $250,000 a year, you are harming almost 1 million small businesses--the very people we are looking to to create the jobs to get the economy moving again--almost 1 million small businesses that file income tax returns. They are passthrough entities or flowthrough entities organized as subchapter S corporations or LLCs; therefore, they file their business income on their individual tax returns. And they would see their taxes go up--almost 1 million small businesses that represent 25 percent of the workforce, hire 25 percent of the workforce in this country. So that is a huge tax increase that is facing job creators in this country come January 1 of next year.

These are things on which the House, the Senate, and the President of the United States ought to be focused. Yet we are not getting that focus. In fact, it is hard to get even information from the President of the United States about how he would implement the sequestration proposal. We had passed legislation earlier this summer which he signed into law in August which required him to submit to the Congress a proposal for how he would implement sequestration. We finally, after a delay--he missed the deadline--received that last week, but, again, it lacks specificity, it lacks detail. Congress asked to have that on program, project specific areas, and we did not get that. So as a consequence, again, we are still operating without the information that is necessary to do something to replace that sequestration.

I have to say that the House of Representatives has attempted--they passed in their budget--in the subsequent reconciliation bill that went with it--a replacement for this sequestration so that we would not have this $\1/2\ trillion cut in our national security budget and all the attendant problems and risks that come with that. Yet that was not picked up, that was not acted on here in the Senate.

So, unfortunately, we are where we are, which is we are going into the election season now. We have not dealt with the across-the-board cuts, the sequestration. We have not dealt with the issue of taxes going up on January 1 on the people who create jobs in this country. For that reason, we have all

these analysts--independents analysts, government analysts--concluding the same thing; that is, we are headed for a train wreck. That is what we ought to be focused on right now.

Frankly, that is not going to happen unless we get some leadership from the President of the United States. We have to have the President engaged, involved in these discussions if we are going to try to solve this problem. I would hope the leadership here in the Senate would be a partner to that as well. I know there are Republicans here who have tried to get votes on ways to replace the sequestration or come up with a substitute for the defense cuts that it includes. We have tried and actually gotten some votes on actually extending the tax rates at the end of the year, but that was voted down here. But the Democratic leadership in the Senate has to be a party to discussions, as does the President of the United States, in order for us to do what is necessary to avert what we know is going to be a calamity come January 1 unless we change course.

As we begin to conclude this particular session of the Senate--I see that my colleague, the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso, who is a physician, a doctor, is here. I know he has spoken at great length about the impact of many of the policies that are coming out of Washington on our small businesses, on our middle class, and I certainly would want to give him an opportunity to make some observations about that as well. But I want to conclude by saying I hope that before this catastrophe hits us, we have the foresight and the willingness and the courage to take on these big issues. You cannot solve big issues in this city without leadership. It is going to take leadership from the President of the United States. It is going to take leadership in the Senate. As I stand here today, we have not seen that. We have not passed a budget in 3 years. We have not dealt with any of the long-term problems that are posed and raised by the fiscal cliff that hits us on January 1 of next year. I hope that changes. I hope to see that leadership. And I hope we can get this country back on track.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 200th Anniversary of the reported death of Sacagawea within the borders of what is now South Dakota. At this time I would like to commemorate her for her contributions to the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

Sacagawea accompanied Meriwether Lewis and William Clark on the Northwestern Discovery Expedition to the Pacific Coast for the U.S. President Thomas Jefferson's Corps. In recognition of her service and bravery, the Central South Dakota Chapter of the Lewis and Clark Trail Heritage Foundation, known as Keepers of the Story, Stewards of the Trail, are hosting a regional meeting September 28, 29, and 30, 2012. The meeting will be open to the public in the cities of Fort Pierre, Pierre, Mobridge, and Kenel, SD. To help commemorate the bicentennial of the reported death of Sacagawea, the Lewis and Clark Trail Heritage Foundation will travel to Fort Manuel Lisa.

The story of Sacagawea, while short, is one of great success and worthy of remembrance. Her guidance and interpretation were vital to Lewis and Clark's journey. I hope my fellow colleagues will help me commemorate the 200th anniversary of the reported death of Sacagawea by recognizing her sacrifice and efforts.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues from Arizona, Alabama and New Hampshire.

Mr. President, we come to the floor today to talk about the sequestration and the looming fiscal cliff. Unfortunately, the White House missed an important deadline last week by failing to provide Congress and the American people with a required report that details the administration's plan for implementing the $1.2 trillion sequester that is scheduled to take effect on January 2 of next year, less than 4 months from now.

That report on both defense and nondefense cuts came about because the administration ignored repeated requests to provide Congress and the American people with details about the impact that sequestration is going to have on critical programs, particularly with regard to our military and national defense. Members of both parties agreed that it was necessary for the White House to produce this information, and so we were glad to see that Sequestration Transparency Act bill passed, a bill with which Senator Sessions, Senator McCain, and others of us were involved. The law required the administration to produce by September 6, last week, a report on how they intended to implement sequestration. Yet so far we have not seen that report. Here we are, it is a week later, and so far President Obama has chosen to ignore a requirement that he signed into law just over a month ago.

All Americans are required to play by the rules and follow the laws of the land. It seems to me, at least, the administration owes the American people and the Congress, under the law that was passed, a report that would detail the proposal they have with regard to the sequestration that is going to occur the first of next year.

I think the reason that is important--it is important for a lot of reasons, but we do not have a lot of time here. If we are going to do something to avert what would be a catastrophe for our national security interests, we have to take the steps that are necessary to do that. Well, it is very hard to come up with a replacement or an alternative to what the administration proposes when we do not know what the administration is proposing.

So we are hoping that when we get this report, which I hope will be soon since it is now a week overdue, we get an idea about what the administration proposes to do and then Congress can move forward, hopefully, with an alternative that would avert what would be a major disaster, as has been described by our military leadership in this country, to America's national security interests. I know the Senator from Arizona, the Senator from Alabama, and others will detail some of that, but I think it is important to point out what some of the President's own advisers have said.

The Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has issued repeated warnings about the negative impact these cuts will have on our military, saying, ``It would do catastrophic damage to our military and its ability to protect this country.''

General Odierno, Chief of Staff of the Army, said that ``cuts of this magnitude would be catastrophic to the military.'' He went on to say that ``these cuts would incur an unacceptable level of strategic and operational risk.''

It is interesting, there is a book out now by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, who describes President Obama and then-OMB Director Jack Lew when they were going through this process as insisting on these defense cuts during the debt ceiling negotiation. It is clear they wanted to use these defense cuts as leverage to get tax increases.

In fact, if we breach the fiscal cliff, if we go over the fiscal cliff, it is now being predicted by the Congressional Budget Office that that will drive unemployment beyond 9 percent next year and plunge the country into yet another recession. In fact, they project--CBO does--that the GDP will contract by 2.9 percent during the first half of next year and by 5 percent over the entire year. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has also said that estimates ``do not incorporate the additional negative effects likely to result from public uncertainty about how these matters will be resolved.''

We are heading toward a train wreck. We are heading toward a disaster for America's national security interests. It all started with the fact that this Chamber has not produced a budget for now 3 years in a row. This is what you end up with when you do not have a budget. We do not have a blueprint on how we are going spend $3.6 trillion of the American taxpayers' money, so we ended up with a budget control act which was cobbled together at the last minute to avoid a crisis on the debt limit last summer which put in place a supercommittee designed to come up with these cuts. When the committee failed, this sequestration process was triggered. That was last November. We have had almost a whole year now for the administration to put forward their plan about how they would implement this sequestration, these across-the-board cuts that disproportionately impact our national security spending.

It is a disservice to the American people, disservice to the Congress for the administration not only to have not put something out prior to, but now since we passed legislation that was signed into law just a month ago that required the President to put forward this report, not to have received it yet so that we can have the time that is necessary to take the action that is necessary to avoid what would be a catastrophe and a disaster for America's national security interests.

I hope we will receive that report. This fiscal cliff is real. It is not just the Congressional Budget Office; a lot of the outside analysts have looked at this and come to the same conclusion; that is, if something is not done to avert these cuts and to deal with the tax increases that will occur on the first of next year, we will go over a fiscal cliff, and that could be incredibly dangerous and have catastrophic consequences for America's national security interests but also for our economy and for jobs.

I would like to yield to my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, one of the most respected voices on national security issues and someone who has been very active on this sequester issue and trying to get the Defense Department to at least let us know what they are intending to do with regard to the cuts that are going to impact the national security interests of this country.

I yield to the Senator from Arizona.

If the Senator from Alabama will yield on that, I think it is important again to point out this could be avoided. Actually, the House of Representatives passed a budget trying to avoid it. They addressed this in their budget. They restricted these reductions, did away with the 50 percent whack the Defense Department would get, which is disproportionate relative to their share of the budget. Defense represents 20 percent or about one-sixth of the budget, as the Senator from Alabama pointed out, but it gets 50 percent of the cuts.

But the House of Representatives passed a budget that the Democrats have been down here attacking for the last couple days--the ``Ryan'' budget or the House-passed budget. At least they had a budget. We haven't had a budget for 3 years in the Senate.

Right, and it passed months ago. We all talk about the jobs impact, the Warren Act notices that are going to go out, and all the uncertainty created by not knowing what the impact of this is going to be, but the House of Representatives passed a budget months ago which spelled out in clear detail how they would avoid these Draconian cuts to the national security budget, replaced them with alternatives by finding reductions in spending in other areas of the budget, and put a budget out that actually accomplished that objective and avoided what we all know is going to be a disaster and a train wreck at the end of the year.

So what happens? The Senate--the world's greatest deliberative body-- doesn't pass a budget for the third year in a row. Here we are, at the eleventh hour, less than 4 months away from when this would take effect, with defense contractors sending out pink slips to employees in the very near future, and the Senate has done nothing to avoid what we know is a very predictable crisis.

Everybody knows this is coming. The Congressional Budget Office is predicting it, the Federal Reserve is predicting it, outside analysts are predicting it. Everybody knows the combination of tax increases on January 1 and the dramatic cuts in the Defense Department are going to take the country into a place economically that we don't want to go. In most cases, according to the CBO, they have said it is going to take us back into a recession. They are predicting a 2.9-percent contraction in the economy in the first 6 months of next year and unemployment over 9 percent.

It is not as though we don't see this coming. Yet here we are, as Senator McCain pointed out, talking about small-ball stuff. We are doing things that in somebody's opinion I am sure is important, but we know we have a disaster looking us right in the eye, and we aren't doing anything to address it.

Again, it all starts with the failure by this institution, the Senate--the world's greatest deliberative body--not able to pass a budget, its most fundamental responsibility. The ranking member of the Budget Committee, the Senator from Alabama, knows full well. The Senator from New Hampshire is also a member of that committee. I am not sure why our committee exists if we aren't going to pass a budget, but we haven't done it now under the Democratic leadership here in the United States for 3 consecutive years.

On that point, it looks as if what they are doing is running out the clock, doesn't it? They have a requirement by September 6--last week--to produce at least their proposal. It is by law. We passed it. He signed it into law back in August. It was required last week, and we haven't seen it yet. It looks to me what they are doing is trying to run the clock out, hoping Congress is going to go home to campaign and they will not have had to do anything to deal with this-- until the lameduck, at which point they can use defense cuts as leverage to try to get tax increases.

It is pretty plain what is going on here. But they have a requirement under the law to produce that. They haven't done it. The Senator from Alabama and I were authors of that legislation. The Senator from New Hampshire has been a great leader in trying to get the administration to put their proposal for implementation in front of us. That hasn't happened. That is, I think, the only conclusion anybody can draw.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. President, all week my Democratic colleagues in the Senate have been coming to the floor and using scare tactics and demagoguery on the so-called Ryan budget. Of course, what they are referring to is the budget that was passed by the House of Representatives months ago.

I suppose it is fair anytime someone produces something to have that criticized, critiqued, scrutinized, looked at, and discussed. But at the same time it seems if someone is going to attack the product that somebody else had put forward the natural follow-up question would be: So what are you proposing? Where is your budget proposal?

I think it begs the question on behalf of the American people that the Democrats in the Senate who want to attack the House-passed budget haven't produced a budget of their own.

It has been over 1,200 days--1,232 to be precise--that we have not considered a budget in the Senate. For those who are trying to do that arithmetic in their minds right now, that is 3 years and 4 months--3 years and 4 months without a budget in the U.S. Senate. That, at the same time that we continue to get bad news about the economy.

This week we received news that Moody's intends, if we end up going over the fiscal cliff next year, to downgrade America's credit rating. That would follow with other credit rating agencies that have already made that assumption about the American economy and the American fiscal situation. We also received notice last week that the World Economic Forum had downgraded America's global competitiveness.

When President Obama took office in January 2009, America was ranked first in the world when it comes to global competitiveness. We dropped down to fourth or fifth in the last year or two. But just in the last couple of weeks, the World Economic Forum has dropped the United States even further. We are now seventh in the world when it comes to global competitiveness.

The reasons they cite for that are many, but it comes back to the basic issues of spending and debt and taxes and regulations and redtape and the cost of doing business in this country. It seems as though the Democratic solution is to tax more so we can spend more. Raise taxes to grow government. That seems to be the only solution the other side is willing to put forward.

Now, when I say that is the only solution, that is what we hear coming out of the White House in terms of the so-called fiscal cliff and in terms of the response to dealing with the sequester: Well, we could do away with the sequester if we just had more revenues. If Washington could just raise more money--more tax revenues--from the American people, this problem would all go away.

But what it misses is the fact that the real issue in Washington, DC, isn't that we tax too little; it is that we spend too much. Washington has a spending problem that needs to be corrected. At least the House of Representatives put forward a budget plan that addressed the fundamental problems that plague our Nation's fiscal situation.

You look at what we are facing in terms of obligations, liabilities, responsibilities in the years in the future--Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, other programs--they continue to grow at two or three times the rate of inflation. That is not sustainable. That is going to lead us to bankruptcy. We are on an unsustainable fiscal path. The trajectory we are on today cannot be sustained over time. Yet we have not seen any proposal put forward by the Democrats here in the Senate-- not just for this last year but the year before that and the year before that. It has been 3 years and 4 months now since the Democrats in the Senate have put a budget on the floor that we would have an opportunity to vote on and to give the American people at least an idea about where we want to lead this country.

So when they come down here, hour after hour, day after day, night after night, attacking the House-passed budget, I think the American people have to say to the Democrats here in the Senate: Where is your plan? Where is your budget? Show us what you would do. Show us how you would address the fiscal crisis we are facing.

The answer is, there is none, it is nada, it is zero. There is not one, no budget, no plan, not this year or the year before or the year before that. For 3 years and 4 months now there has not been a budget put on the floor of the Senate for us to vote on, for us to discuss, for us to have any kind of conversation about the future of this country and what we are going to do to address the fiscal crisis that we all acknowledge exists.

This is the most predictable crisis, as has been pointed out, in American history. We all know where we are headed. You can look at the numbers. It is not complicated. It is not rocket science. It is simply a function of math and the math is working against us, and every day we wait it becomes more complicated, difficult, and problematic, I believe, for us to solve this problem, and it further threatens the future and puts at risk our children and grandchildren and the quality of life and the standard of living they are going to experience and enjoy in their lifetimes.

When the ratings agencies such as Moody's come out and say that this fiscal cliff, if we go over it, means a downgrade in the credit rating of the United States, when you have organizations such as the World Economic Forum say that the United States is now seventh when it comes to global competitiveness as opposed to first--which is where it was when the President took office--we all should take notice. It is another flashing light, another warning sign, another red flag, if you will, that things are not well in the United States of America. Yet the only proposal that has been put forward that would address that is the budget passed by the House of Representatives. Why? Because the U.S. Senate again has not passed a budget. We have not produced a budget now for over 3 years.

It is interesting because one of my Democratic colleagues who was down here talking earlier this week described the budget as a set of values; in attacking the House-passed budget, that somehow the House- passed budget represented the wrong values. It did not represent, somehow, American values. If the budget represents a set of values, what does it mean, then, when you do not have one? If you do not have a budget, what does that say about your values?

It seems to me, at least, that at least the House of Representatives, to their credit, has put forward a proposal that, whether or not you agree with it, does address the fundamental problems we have as a Nation; that is, out-of-control Federal spending, a trajectory with regard to entitlement programs that literally will bankrupt the country, and a Tax Code that is overly complicated that needs to be reformed. Those were all addressed in the House budget. A lot of people attacked the whole idea in the House budget with regard to Medicare reform, which is referred to as premium support. Premium support is not a new idea. It is something that was popularized by liberal think tanks years ago. In fact, this year the House-proposed idea, when it comes to premium support, was something advanced by Representative Paul Ryan and Senator Wyden here in the U.S. Senate. It was a bipartisan idea.

It was also something advocated by the Rivlin-Domenici task force that looked at our fiscal situation, made recommendations, and when it came to the notion of how to reform Medicare, premium support was something that was put forward as something that could be a new idea that can save the government--the taxpayers--money, introduce competition in the same way that the Medicare Part D Program has introduced competition and actually saved money over what it was proposed to cost.

It is not a new idea. It is an idea that has been tried. When Medicare Part D was adopted, the premium support concept was included as part of that and you can see the results of that have led to lower costs, much lower costs than were predicted. Frankly, that is, I believe, because it introduced the element of competition into the whole way we deliver health care services under Medicare. That was something that was proposed and built upon, developed as part of the budget that was passed in the House of Representatives. But, again, it is something that is not new around here. It has had lots of support in the past from Democrats.

It seems to me at least that if we know what we have today is not working, we ought to be willing to at least entertain a discussion and conversation about some ideas that might actually solve the problem and might work. Yet here in the Senate for 3 years we have not had a budget.

Some would argue that the President of the United States has put forward a budget. In fact, as a matter of I guess delivering a set of papers to the Congress, he did do that. But I would argue and I think most would agree it was not a serious effort. It certainly was not a meaningful attempt to address

the issue of spending and debt or entitlement reform and that was evidenced by the fact that when it was put on the floor in the Senate to be voted on, it was defeated by a vote of 97 to 0. In the previous year the House of Representatives had a vote on the President's budget. That year it was voted down in the House by something like 419 or 420 to 0. The President's budget for 2 consecutive years here in the Senate has not received one vote from any Democrat in either the House or the Senate.

That should speak volumes about the President's attempt to do this. I think what it suggests is it was not serious, it did not make a real effort at trying to address the issues of spending and debt and getting the economy growing again and reforming our Tax Code and driving down the cost of doing business in this country instead of increasing the costs, which is something that seems to be happening every single day. As I travel across my State of South Dakota and listen to businesses from other parts of the country, I hear over and over again that the cost of doing business is making us uncompetitive. We continue to be saddled with regulations, with requirements, with mandates, with taxes. Those sorts of things, the redtape of doing business, are making it incredibly difficult for our small businesses and job creators to get this economy back on its feet and get it growing again.

I would simply say in response to the attacks that have been leveled by my colleagues on the other side on the proposal that was advanced and put forward by the House Republicans, that it would bode well if you want to have a debate about priorities, if you want to have a debate about values and if you want to have a debate about budgets, to have one. It starts with a budget. We don't have one. We do not have any plan for how we are going to deal with the very factors, the very elements that led organizations such as Moody's and the World Economic Forum to determine that the United States credit rating is in jeopardy and that our global competitiveness has dropped from first in the world to seventh.

Those are things I think we ought to be talking about, and you cannot start talking about those things unless you have a plan, unless you have a budget that describes what you would do to address the drivers of Federal spending, the drivers of Federal debt.

Again I cannot emphasize this enough: the only thing I hear coming out of my colleagues on the other side to address it is we need more revenues. We need to raise more taxes. We don't have enough revenue. If we could raise more revenue we could solve all those problems. I say to my colleagues what we have here in Washington, DC, is not a revenue issue, we have a spending problem. Washington does not tax too little, it spends too much. That is why we need to get spending under control, but it starts with the budget.

I think it behooves our colleagues on the other side, as they come down here day after day and berate and attack and suggest somehow that the budget that was passed by the House of Representatives is not representative of American values, to come down here with something of their own that might lay out a plan that actually does address Medicare reform, Medicaid reform, tax reform--the things that we know have to be dealt with in the future if we are going to hand a better and more prosperous and stronger Nation to our children and our grandchildren. That simply has not happened.

They can come down here and say what they want, but when there is no budget, there is no blueprint, there is no plan, then there is no path forward that addresses these difficult, complicated challenges and problems that face us and face our Nation in the future. I hope we eventually see that. I hope the President will come to the table and that we can sit down and talk about how we are going to solve the fiscal cliff we are headed over at the end of this year. Again, it is not just the credit rating, it is not just global competitiveness, it is the American economy that is at stake as well. The Congressional Budget Office has said if we go over this fiscal cliff where taxes go up on January 1, where these disproportionate cuts take effect on the military budget, we are looking at an economic recession next year, a contraction of the economy of 2.9 percent and unemployment above 9 percent. This is about America's standing, about our competitiveness, and it is about jobs in the economy, fundamentally. It is high time that we had help and cooperation and an idea, perhaps, from the other side about how they would solve these problems. I hope we will get that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I recognize the Services Center Federal Credit Union, SCFCU, a member-owned, not-for-profit financial cooperative located in Yankton, Springfield, and Parkston,

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Ryan and Amber Johnson of Sioux Falls, SD, as my nominees for the 2012 Angels in Adoption Award. Since 1999, the Angels in Adoption program through the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institution has honored more than 1,800 individuals, couples, and organizations nationwide for their work in providing children with loving, stable homes.

After being married for only a short time, Ryan and Amber Johnson began to consider expanding their family. After overcoming initial personal setbacks, the Johnson family decided to open their home to children in need by becoming foster parents. The couple quickly accepted the opportunity to become long-term foster parents of three siblings between the ages of 7 months and 6 years, and later, the Johnsons provided a temporary, loving home for a 4-year-old foster child. The Johnsons were soon blessed again with two Native American half-brothers as foster children. It quickly became evident to Ryan and Amber how wonderful the addition of these two boys was to their family. Shortly after, Ryan and Amber adopted Lukias, age 3, and are in the process of finalizing the adoption of his younger brother. During the adoption process, the Johnson family learned that they were pregnant, and on May 1, 2011, welcomed their newest family member, Sophia. The young family now consists of 3 siblings, ages 1, 2, and 3.

Foster homes regularly see children come and go, staying for varying lengths of time. The changing environment often places an emotional toll on the caregivers who develop deep, personal relationships with their foster children. Despite the challenges that foster parents face, the Johnsons have used their life lessons to create a warm, loving home for children in need of a nurturing environment to grow and develop. Ryan and Amber plan to continue taking in foster children and possibly even expand their family by giving other children a place to call home.

National Adoption Day is around the corner, and it is important to recognize the compassionate families who bring joy to the lives of children as foster and adoptive parents. It brings me great pride to be able to honor South Dakotans Ryan and Amber Johnson, my nominees for the 2012 Angels in Adoption Award.

I know it is very confusing, and I thank my colleague from North Dakota for yielding to his colleague from the South.

I hoped to come down and to ask unanimous consent to pass S. 1956 with a committee-reported amendment. My understanding is there is an objection on the other side. I am disappointed about that. I had hoped we would be able to get unanimous consent today to pass what is a very bipartisan bill. It is the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act. It is a bill that passed by voice vote earlier this week from the Commerce Committee, and a similar measure was passed earlier this year in the House of Representatives by a voice vote. The aviation industry, the administration, consumers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, just about everyone believes that the EU must be reined in and it must happen quickly.

In fact, just this week at the Commerce Committee markup Senator Boxer, who is the chairwoman of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, and also a member of the Commerce Committee, said, referring to my bill:

I think moving it fast is critical because I think it will

send a message to the international organization we are

trying to nudge forward and know this is the way this is

going to be dealt with.

I could not agree more. In 2005, the European Union began their emissions

trading scheme which attempts to cap emissions of carbon dioxide from stationary sources within the European Union. Starting in 2012, in January of this year, aviation operators departing from or landing in Europe began to be included in this emissions scheme. Under this program, any airline, including non-European airlines, flying into and out of Europe will be required to pay for EU emissions allowances. Allowances will be collected for the entirety of the flight including portions in U.S. and international airspace.

This is a great example of this unfair application that is happening right now. We have Olympic athletes flying to and from the London games by air. One such Olympian is from my home State of South Dakota, Paige McPherson, and she is competing in Taekwondo next week. She arrived in London last week and the final leg took her from Newark Airport to Heathrow Airport. During this flight, approximately 555 miles of the 3,500 miles flown, or 16 percent, was actually in EU airspace, but her flight was taxed as if 100 percent of it was in EU airspace. Obviously, this unilateral imposition of the EU ETS on U.S. aviation operators is arbitrary, unfair, and a clear violation of international law. Plus it is being done without any guarantee for environmental improvements and at a huge cost to the aviation industry and constituents we serve.

Let me be clear that no one in Congress is against the EU implementing this European trading scheme within their boundaries. That is obviously their prerogative; that is their jurisdiction. However, I believe any system that includes international and other non-EU airspace must be addressed through the International Civil Aviation Organization, known as ICAO, of which the United States and 190 countries, including all of the EU member states, are members. That is why I introduced this simple bipartisan bill. It gives the Secretary of Transportation the authority to take the necessary steps to ensure America's aviation operators are not penalized by any system unilaterally imposed by the European Union.

The bill also requires the Secretary of Transportation, the Administrator of the FAA, and other senior U.S. officials to use their authority to conduct international negotiations and take other actions necessary to ensure that U.S. operators are held harmless from the actions of the European Union.

It is time for the Senate to join the House of Representatives and the administration in voicing our strong opposition to application of the European Union's emission trading scheme system to American operators. I am sorry that it couldn't be done today because, as I said, this was unanimously reported out of the Commerce Committee earlier this week. We have broad bipartisan support. Democrats and Republicans agree this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Frankly, it is one that I think could be addressed in a very timely way. The longer we wait, the longer we have American air carriers and therefore American travelers paying into a system where is no guarantee it is going to be used for any kind of environmental improvements in Europe. It is, in effect, a tax on American travelers that would fund European governments. If we want to put it in a crass way, we could say that the American public is being taxed to bail out European nations. That is as simply as I can put this. It is a violation of international law; it is a violation of American sovereignty. It is unfair, unjust, and an illegal tax. It needs to be stopped. This legislation would allow that to happen.

It is unfortunate that we have an objection on the other side to prevent that from happening tonight. I intend to work with my colleagues to get a vote on this when we return in September.

I want to thank my colleague from North Dakota for his graciousness in allowing me to make that statement.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I would like to take this opportunity to honor Judy Kroll of Volga, SD.

Judy Kroll has spent her career serving the community of Brookings, SD, in her capacity as an educator, as well as the director of the thriving speech and debate program at Brookings High School.

Judy, who retired this summer, served as a South Dakota educator for 37 years, teaching in both Madison and Parkston before starting at Brookings High School in 1980. During her 32 years as an educator and debate coach in Brookings, she has left an indelible impact on her students, dedicating an immeasurable amount of time to positively impacting the lives of young people. Judy has devoted countless hours to advance the critical and analytical skills of those students who she taught, coached, and mentored.

During her coaching career, Judy has been awarded South Dakota Forensic Coaches Association Coach of the Year on numerous occasions and coached her students to multiple State championships in various speech and debate events. Her success as a coach was also demonstrated at the national level. She coached policy debate teams to 2nd and 3rd place finishes in 2000 at the National Forensics League National Speech and Debate Tournament and a 7th place finish earlier this summer at the same tournament.

Judy's longstanding involvement in the debate community has been recognized not only by her South Dakota peers, but at a national level as well. In 2011, she was admitted to the National Forensics League Hall of Fame. Of the thousands of debate coaches who have been a part of the National Forensics League since its inception in 1925, only 158 individuals have earned this honor. Judy is one of four South Dakotans to have received this honor. In addition, she was recently named the 2012 National Forensics League Coach of the Year. This award recognizes Judy's outstanding leadership and commitment to National Forensic League activities. Judy's receipt of this award marks only the second time a South Dakotan has received such an honor since it was first awarded in 1953.

During her teaching and coaching career, Judy encouraged her students to never give up on accomplishing their goals. She promoted outstanding sportsmanship and for years a large display in her classroom read, ``What is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular.'' Judy exemplified for her students the importance of working hard and attaining success without compromising ethics and sense of doing what is right.

I join Judy's family, friends, and students in recognizing her meritorious work and extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Judy for all she has done for her students and the State of South Dakota, and wish her the best in her retirement.

Mr. President, today I recognize Allyson Burns, an intern in my Rapid City, SD, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past couple of months.

Allyson is a graduate of Stevens High School in Rapid City, SD. Currently, she is attending Creighton University in Omaha, NE where she is majoring in psychology and creative writing. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Allyson for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Tyler Fitz, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks.

Tyler is a graduate of Roosevelt High School in Sioux Falls, SD. He is also a graduate of South Dakota State University where he majored in history and Spanish. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Tyler for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Stephen Goodfellow, an intern in my Sioux Falls, SD, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks.

Stephen is a graduate of Boiling Springs High School in Boiling Springs, PA. Currently, he is attending the University of South Dakota where he is majoring in economics and finance. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Stephen for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Alex Hall, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks.

Alex is a graduate of Lincoln High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, he is attending the University of New Mexico where he is majoring in philosophy and psychology. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Alex for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Kody Kyriss, an intern in my Aberdeen, SD, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks.

Kody is a native of Lesterville and a graduate of Menno High School. Currently, he is attending Northern State University, where he is pursuing degrees in English and political science. He is a very hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Kody for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.