Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of Mr. Morgan French, of Radcliff, KY, who passed away in February 2012 at the age of 92. The U.S. Army's Warrior Transition Battalion at Fort Knox will soon be honoring Morgan by naming its barracks after him. Today, I would like to pay tribute to this American hero.

Originally from Perryville, KY, Morgan was a military veteran who personified the ``greatest generation.'' He served in the U.S. Army with the renowned ``Harrodsburg Tankers,'' Company D of the 192nd Tank Battalion. The Harrodsburg Tankers--including Morgan and his brother, Edward--were in the Philippines' Bataan Peninsula in the spring of 1942 and came under heavy attack by Japanese forces. Morgan's brother, Edward, was killed and Morgan was taken as a prisoner of war, POW, by Japanese troops. He spent nearly three-and-a-half years of his life as a POW, enduring extreme conditions and harsh treatment. This brave Kentuckian maintained hope and courage throughout these hardships and was finally liberated by Allied Forces in September 1945. Morgan's military service did not end with World War II, however. Following his nearly three-and-a-half years as a POW, he returned to active duty, served two tours in the Korean War, and became a member of the Kentucky National Guard. Morgan retired from the military in 1962 after 23 years of service. He continued to work selflessly as a civilian, teaching at the U.S. Army Armor School at Fort Knox until 1984.

Morgan and his wife, Maxine--who preceded him in death--made Radcliff their home for almost half a century. I can't think of a more fitting tribute than for the U.S. Army to name the Warrior Transition Battalion barracks at Fort Knox after Morgan French, an American hero.

Mr. President, S. 3510 addresses the concerns raised by 14 of the most highly respected folks in the national security field, from Michael Chertoff to Mike Mcconnell to Michael Mukasey, all of whom wrote with serious concerns about the application of one provision of the STOCK Act requiring online posting of financial data which would potentially impact the national security and the personal safety of national security and law enforcement professionals and their families. These are very serious concerns they have raised, and given that we are on the eve of the August district work period, we do not have time to adequately address those concerns. Thus, this very short bill adopts their joint recommendation to delay implementation until the national security and personal safety implications can be fully evaluated. Not one change has been made to what is required to be reported, and there is no change to the longstanding requirement that all these reports are already available in person. It is for the safety and security of our brave men and women that we need to ensure they are protected which is exactly what this bill does.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a letter dated July 19, 2012, addressed to congressional leaders printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in January of this year the President of the United States made several appointments without obtaining the Senate's advice and consent. He asserted that the Recess Appointments Clause of the Constitution authorized these appointments, even though the Senate was conducting a series of pro forma sessions at the time of the appointments. According to the administration, these pro forma sessions had no legal effect on the President's authority under this Clause because pro forma sessions do not allow the Senate to perform its constitutional functions or conduct business. The Congressional Research Service has found, however, that pro forma sessions, such as the ones occurring during the time of these so-called recess appointments, have satisfied--and continue to satisfy--numerous Constitutional, statutory, and legislative requirements, and that the Senate, in fact, has conducted business during such sessions. The Congressional Research Service also has found that the administration has repeatedly recognized the legal validity of pro forma sessions for purposes of satisfying these various requirements. I ask unanimous consent that the analysis of the Congressional Research Service from March 8, 2012 entitled ``Certain Questions Related to Pro Forma Sessions of the Senate'' be printed in the Record following this statement.

Madam President, yesterday I came to the floor to draw attention to the administration's transparent attempts to conceal the impact of defense cuts President Obama demanded as part of last year's debt-ceiling deal. I was referring, of course, to the administration's Monday notification to businesses that work with the government that they are under no obligation to warn employees who might lose their jobs as a result of these cuts. Incredibly, the administration's argument was that they don't expect the cuts to happen even though the President had not done a thing to prevent them and even though Congress had to pass a law requiring the administration to tell us what the cuts would look like.

So let's be clear. The administration officials who sent out this notification instructing businesses to keep quiet about these cuts know just as well as I do that the cuts are coming unless Senate Democrats act or the President of the United States finally decides to come up with a credible plan to replace them.

The only reason the administration sent out this guidance to employers earlier this week was to keep people in the dark about the impact these defense cuts will have until, of course, after the election. So the White House is clearly trying to hide the ball from all of us. The clearest proof of that is the fact that no one even denied it after I noted it here just yesterday. But if we did need further proof, we actually got it yesterday when the Obama administration's Office of Management and Budget issued guidance of its own to departments and agencies telling folks they should prepare for the cuts.

So let's get this straight. Government workers should prepare for cuts, but private businesses and their employers should not. Not a week seems to pass that we don't see more evidence of the President's absolute contempt for the private sector, and here is the latest. The Federal Government is told to prepare for cuts, and yet the private sector businesses are specifically told it would be ``inappropriate'' to tell people they could lose their jobs. The cuts to the Defense Department under sequester are the law of the land, and until Congress changes that fact they are totally foreseeable.

Yesterday the Director of OMB exempted appropriations for military personnel from the sequester, providing even more certainty that the cuts to defense will fall upon training, maintenance, and weapons procurement and development. So the fact is that private businesses have a higher degree of certainty that their workforces will be hit. Yet here is the administration's message: If you are in the public sector, prepare for cuts. If you are in the private sector, don't even warn your employees that their jobs actually may be on the line.

What a perfect summary of this administration's approach to the economy and jobs over the past 3\1/2\ years. Private businesses didn't earn their success; somebody else made that happen. Now the President says: If you work hard in the private sector, you don't even deserve to know if your job is on the chopping block. The private sector is doing just fine; it is the government that needs help. That is the message of this administration.

Just as disturbing is what this says about the administration's approach to our national defense. The President's own Defense Secretary has said these cuts would hollow out our Armed Forces. Yet the President has not said a word about how he plans to responsibly replace them or, if he accepts a weakened national defense, how he will carry them out. Congress had to actually pass a law forcing him to make these plans clear to everybody. Now, he hasn't signed the bill yet. It went to him by voice vote out of the Senate last week. The defense cuts that will be triggered under the sequester are in addition to the $487 billion in cuts to the Department identified by Secretary Gates.

It is time for the President to provide the leadership to avoid these reductions that will render his own strategy unsustainable. A lot of people are wondering how they will be affected by these cuts. The fact that many of them will be voting in swing States in November is no reason to leave them wondering about their fate any longer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not be objecting, let me echo the remarks of the majority leader. This is an important piece of legislation.

The part I have the most interest in renews Burma's sanctions-- something we have done on an annual basis for 10 years. We are renewing the sanctions in spite of the fact that much progress has been made in Burma in the last year and a half. Secretary Clinton will, of course, recommend to the President that these sanctions be waived in recognition of the significant progress that has been made in the last year and a half in that country, which is trying to move from a rather thuggish military dictatorship to a genuine democracy. There is still a long way to go.

This is an important step in the right direction. America speaks with one voice regarding Burma. My views are the same as the views of the Obama administration as expressed by Secretary Clinton.

I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee also for helping us work through the process, and particularly Senator Coburn, who had some reservations about the non-Burma parts of this bill. I think we have worked those out and are moving forward. It is an important step in the right direction.

Mr. President, I rise today in memory of former Hazard Police Chief Rod Maggard. Chief Maggard was a prominent member of the Perry County, KY, community, and he dedicated his life to serving his country, State, and city.

A native of the southeastern Kentucky region, Chief Maggard was born on April 9, 1944, to Ivory and Margaret Maggard. After graduating from Cumberland High School, he attended Southeast Community College. Shortly thereafter, Chief Maggard received his draft notice for the Vietnam War. Initially, he was stationed in Biloxi, MI, where he worked as a Morse radio intercept operator, and he ultimately served a 14- month tour in DaNang, Vietnam.

Chief Maggard became a State trooper in 1967 when he returned home from the war. He was a decorated trooper and even received the Trooper of the Year Award for the Hazard KSP Post. In 1981, Maggard left public service and became director of Blue Diamond Coal's security. However, in 1991, he returned to public duty when he accepted the position of police chief for the City of Hazard.

His career was highly distinguished as he earned many different forms of recognition. Chief Maggard was invited to the White House to represent the Kentucky Chiefs of Police; he also served on the Kentucky Law Enforcement Council from 1995 to 2001; in 1997 he was appointed to the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center Advisory Council; and he was president of the Kentucky Association of Chiefs of Police from 1999 to 2000. In 2001, Chief Maggard retired from the police force and became the director of the Rural Law Enforcement Technology Center in Hazard.

Though a decorated police officer and public servant, the legacy Chief Rod Maggard hoped to leave was that of a good member of his community. Current Hazard police chief Minor Allen said that Chief Maggard was not just a mentor but more like a second father to him. It was his love of Hazard and Kentucky that set Maggard apart as a great police chief, and that is the reason why Rod will be dearly missed by those he knew and with whom he worked.

Today, I ask that my colleagues in the U.S. Senate would join me in honoring Chief Rod Maggard. I extend my most sincere condolences to his wife, Beverly; their daughters, Lesley Buckner, Brandi Townsley, and Vali Dye; his sons-in-law; brother; grandchildren; and many more beloved family members and friends. The Hazard Herald, a publication from Hazard, KY, published an obituary that highlighted Chief Maggard's outstanding service to Kentucky. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that said article appear in the Record.

Mr. President, I might say to my friend the majority leader before he leaves the floor that I listened carefully to his speech about what most Americans refer to as ObamaCare. Given the fact that our friends on the other side are going to focus on that bill this particular week, I think it might be a good idea to have a vote on it, on the pending bill.

It would be my intent to offer an amendment that I know my friend does not support, but nevertheless many Americans would like to know. Since we have spent a good deal of time positioning over the last few months on various and assorted issues, I think it would be appropriate to have a vote on the repeal of ObamaCare, and I hope to be able to offer that amendment during the pendency of the bill on cyber security, which we believe will be open to amendments. I wonder if my friend thinks that might be something both sides might agree would be a good idea.

I guess the answer is no.

My friends are going to spend the week lauding the advantages as they see them of an immensely unpopular bill that was passed a couple of years ago on a straight party-line vote--ObamaCare. Yet, in a week in which, apparently, they are going to laud the various positions of it, they are not willing to have a vote in support of it. So I gather that is a vote we will not have. I will request the opportunity to do that again. After listening to my good friend the majority leader, I anticipate such a request would likely be blocked.

On another matter----

I believe I have the floor.

Mr. President, 4 years after the great recession began, millions of Americans are still looking for work, millions more have literally dropped out of the workforce altogether, and uncertainty about our Nation's future continues to spread. The stories of disappointment and of loss haven't diminished; they have, in fact, multiplied.

What is worse, a President who was elected on a pledge that he would turn all those things around is still pointing the finger at his predecessor. Three and a half years after he took office, he is acting as though he just showed up. I think most Americans are smart enough to know he has made things worse. He has hammered small businesses with a barrage of new regulations, with dozens more in the pipeline. He expects them to plan for the future without even knowing what their tax and health care liabilities will be. Last week he even spearheaded a legislative effort to take even more of what nearly 1 million of these small businesses earn, and then he told Republicans that if we don't go along with it, he will raise taxes on everybody else.

That was the message last week: Either give me what I want--raise taxes on 1 million of our most successful small businesses--or we will let everybody's taxes go up, is what he said at the end of the week. In other words, he used small businesses as little more than a bargaining chip. The week before that he told business owners that they are not really responsible for what they have built. Listen to that. To business owners, the President said: You are not really responsible for what you have built. No amount of White House spin or manufactured outrage can change what the President said in Roanoke, and no amount of finger-pointing can change the fact that his policies have actually made things worse.

But what is most upsetting to a lot of us is the fact that the administration pretends its policies would help the economy or create jobs when it knows they won't. It knows these policies are not going to create any jobs. What is most upsetting is the deception that lies at the heart of so many of the sales jobs, from health care to the stimulus.

Americans wanted the President to focus on jobs, and he focused on a health care bill that we now learn not only includes a tax on the middle class but will lead to hundreds of thousands of fewer jobs. Now the President claims he is fighting for the middle class, but 3\1/2\ years into his Presidency their wages are still stagnant while their dependency on government assistance actually continues to rise. Wages are stagnant, and dependence on government assistance continues to rise.

In some cases the President doesn't even bother with the sales jobs; he just keeps his plans a secret. That is what we are now seeing with the defense cuts he demanded during last year's budget negotiations. Literally for weeks, Republicans asked the President to tell the American people how he planned to carry out these cuts. He refused.

Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

As I was saying, for weeks Republicans asked the President to tell the American people how he plans to carry out these cuts. He simply refused to do so. So last week Congress passed legislation requiring him to do so. In fact, it cleared the Senate, I believe, unanimously.

Then yesterday there was this: An Assistant Secretary down at the Department of Labor is now telling people they are under no legal obligation to let employees know if they will lose their jobs as a result of these cuts. Let me say that again. We have an Assistant Secretary of Labor who just yesterday said that employers are under no legal obligation to tell their employees they may lose their jobs as a result of these cuts. In other words, the President is trying to keep those folks in the dark about whether they can expect to lose their jobs. Why? Well, I think it is pretty obvious: to insulate himself from the political fallout that will result. The President doesn't want people reading about pink slips in the weeks before his election, so the White House is telling people to keep the effects of these cuts a secret--don't tell anybody, he says, keep it a secret--until, of course, after the election. Once again, a President who holds himself out as a great defender of the middle class and the goals of organized labor is putting his own political goals ahead of the hard-working Americans who will be affected by these policies. Rather than let those who will be affected by the cuts know about them, he will make everybody nervous.

For 3\1/2\ years--3\1/2\ long years--this President has pushed an ideological agenda without regard for the consequences it would have on the very middle-class Americans he purports to defend.

The President may not want to admit it, but the economic mess we are in is his legacy--his legacy. After 3\1/2\ years of finger-pointing-- 3\1/2\ years of finger-pointing--he owes it to the American people to be straight about it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to an honored Kentuckian and veteran of World War II, Mr. Ned Moore. Mr. Moore visited the Nation's capital several months ago with Honor Flight, the group that helps bring veterans to Washington, D.C., to see the memorials that were built in their honor. Mr. Moore was able to see the World War II Memorial that he and his fellow sailors inspired.

Ned's grandson, Mr. Tres Watson, is a good friend of mine, and when he made me aware of his grandfather's visit, I thought it worth a moment to share Ned's story with my colleagues. Ned Moore was born in Marydell, MS, on February 27, 1927. He joined the Navy in Jackson, MS, on August 1, 1944, at the age of 16, without his mother's consent. He was assigned to the USS Coronis, a landing-craft repair ship, on Christmas Day 1944.

While Ned was aboard the Coronis, it saw action throughout the Pacific Theater, including acting as a support ship during the battle of Okinawa.

In 1945, Ned was assigned to the United Nations, where among his duties he served as personal driver for UN delegates including Eleanor Roosevelt, who was a UN delegate at the time. She presented Ned with a Roosevelt dime after making his acquaintance.

In March 1946, Ned was assigned to the USS Wright, a Saipan-class light aircraft carrier, where he served as an aircraft mechanic. While the Wright was stationed in Pensacola, FL, functioning as a training ship, Ned married Margaret Daly in 1948.

In October 1952, Ned was assigned to the USS Bennington, an Essex- class aircraft carrier that had been

recomissioned as an attack carrier. While the Bennington was stationed in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in February 1953, then-U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy obtained leave for Ned to return to the United States for the birth of his first child.

In 1958, Ned was assigned to the USS Wasp in Boston after it had been overhauled to become the hub of a special anti-submarine group of the Sixth Fleet. While aboard the Wasp, Ned sailed through the Mediterranean and participated in Operation Blue Bat, a U.S. military intervention into Lebanon. The Wasp was responsible for transporting sick and injured Marines from Lebanon so they could receive care.

In 1960, Ned was transferred to NAS, Naval Air Station Memphis. While in Memphis, Ned established the Naval Air Maintenance Training Group Library. He was also a courier between Memphis and Washington, carrying plans for jets under design.

He retired from the Navy in Memphis on December 31, 1964, as a senior chief petty officer.

After leaving the Navy, Ned and his family moved to Mayfield, KY, where he worked as a maintenance manager at the General Tire manufacturing facility. There, he raised three children, Debbie, Richy, and Mike. After retiring from General Tire in 1983, Ned and his wife kept their house in Mayfield while traveling the country in a motor home in the spring, summer, and fall and wintering in Florida. They travelled to all 50 States. They moved to Lillian, AL, in 2005.

At this time I ask my U.S. Senate colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Ned Moore for his service to country and his devotion to the defense of freedom. When World War II ended, he laid down his arms to become a productive, successful member of the community who was admired by his family, neighbors, and State. He has been a role model to Tres Watson and many other Kentuckians. I wish him all the best in his retirement and a happy future.

Madam President, with sadness I rise today to mark the passing on July 11, 2012, of former Kentucky State Representative Dewayne Bunch. As a teacher and State representative, Dewayne served the people of the Commonwealth, especially those in Whitley and Laurel Counties, with distinction. He also proudly served our country in Iraq as a member of the Kentucky National Guard. Elaine and I send our condolences to his wife Regina, his family, his many friends, and all those at Whitley County High School who knew and loved him.

A Corbin resident, Representative Bunch died at age 50. He is survived by his wife Representative Regina Bunch, and he was the father of three daughters. Though his life was cut short, it was characterized by a dedication to serving others in his community, State, and country. Representative

Bunch was a member of the Kentucky National Guard for 23 years, where he notably led the Mountain Warriors in Iraq as a first sergeant.

Although he valiantly represented his Nation and State abroad, Representative Bunch also did much of his work from within the community. He was a math and science teacher at Whitley County High School for 17 years, and in 2010, with the support of the citizens of the 82nd District, was elected State Representative. However, after an injury in 2011, Bunch resigned from his post to receive medical treatment. His wife Regina ran for the position and succeeded her husband as the 82nd District's representative.

The loss of Representative Bunch to the members of the Whitley County community is immeasurable, and Dewayne's death has saddened Kentuckians across the State. Members of the State House Republican Caucus said he was committed to serving the public and ran for elected office in order to more fully serve the people of the Corbin community. The Governor of the State of Kentucky, Steve Beshear, acknowledged the loss of Representative Bunch by ordering flags lowered to half-staff.

Hundreds of people came to pay their respects at Representative Bunch's funeral on July 15, held at Highland Park Cemetery in Williamsburg. Military graveside honors were conducted by the Kentucky National Guard. At the funeral, Representative Bunch was posthumously awarded the Kentucky Distinguished Service Medal to commemorate his work on behalf of his community and the State of Kentucky. I am privileged today to recognize Representative Bunch and his legacy of service to the Commonwealth.

Madam President, at this time I ask my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to join me in honoring the life of Representative Dewayne Bunch of Corbin, KY. The Croley Funeral Home has published an obituary that highlighted his achievements and pays tribute to those Representative Bunch leaves behind. I ask unanimous consent that said article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, yesterday our Democratic friends took a vote that says a lot about the way they view the world. After nearly 4 years of spending and debt, millions of Americans are still struggling amidst the slowest recovery in modern times, and the economy is flat on its back. Our friends on the other side think a great way to go forward is to raise taxes. Under the guise of pretending to care about the deficit, Democrats are pushing an ideological goal of a symbolic tax increase that would not even fund the government for 1 week. The vote we had yesterday--with all but two of the Democrats on board--allegedly doing something about the deficit wouldn't fund government for 1 week.

They are not even pretending to care about the economy. They have sort of given up on the argument that this is about the economy. We know that because 2 years ago the Democrats agreed the higher taxes they are now fighting for would hurt the economy.

Let's look at the economy then and the economy now. At a time when economic growth was 3\1/2\ percent, back in December of 2010, 40 Democrats voted to keep rates where they were on the grounds that it was the best thing to do for jobs. In December 2010, 40 Democrats voted to keep the tax rates where they were because it was the best thing for jobs. Yet now when the growth rate is 2 percent--it was 3\1/2\ percent then, it is 2 percent now--and 13 million Americans are still out of work, they are voting to slam nearly 1 million businesses with a tax increase. Maybe they are expecting the GDP numbers tomorrow to be 3\1/ 2\ percent. We will see.

That is one of two things, either our Democratic friends don't even care about the economy and jobs anymore and are just embracing Thelma- and-Louise economics--let's take everybody off the cliff and hope people support them for some other reason--or their economic world view is so far outside the mainstream of everyone else who has looked at the situation that they think 2 percent growth and 13 million Americans unemployed is good enough. Maybe they think that is as good as we can do. That is where this ideological crusade of theirs is taking them, right in that direction. I just hope for the sake of a struggling American economy that some of them soon see how misguided an approach this is.

Let me repeat, 2 years ago in December of 2010, when the economy was growing at a rate of 3\1/2\ percent, 40 of our Democratic colleagues, the President, the Vice President, me, and the Speaker agreed to extend the current tax rates for 2 years because it would be good for jobs.

Just yesterday, with two exceptions, every Democrat voted to raise taxes on 1 million businesses when the growth rate--the GDP increased rate--is 2 percent and 13 million Americans are looking for work. That is not a prescription for the economy; that is an ideological crusade. That is not about America's jobs; that is about the election 4 months from now.

I yield the floor.

Reservation Of Leader Time

Madam President, shortly I am going to be asking unanimous consent to pass the annual Burma sanctions bill that we have renewed about this time every year for the last decade. The bill was reported out of the Finance Committee on a voice vote last week along with a package of other unrelated measures as part of S. 3326.

Some of my colleagues have some concerns about those other sections. This is unrelated to the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. As I indicated, on behalf of my colleagues I have offered--in fact, what I have done in discussions off the floor is offer to find a time to set up a vote on S. 3326 on behalf of my colleagues.

I believe a vote is the best way to resolve the impasse surrounding this bill. However, our friends on the other side have as yet not agreed to that. So in the absence of a vote on the larger bill, I think the best way to proceed is for the Senate to go ahead and pass this important and noncontroversial foreign policy measure today.

This is a very timely issue. These sanctions actually expire today. If we do not act now to extend them, I do not know when the Senate will have a chance to address this important issue. Consideration of this year's Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act comes amidst historic changes that are occurring on the ground in Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi, long a political prisoner of the country, is now actually a member of the Parliament.

The National League for Democracy, once a completely banned organization, now actively participates in political life in Burma. For these reasons and others, the administration, which I support, has taken a number of actions to acknowledge the impressive reforms that President Thein Sein and his government have instituted thus far. The United States has responded by sending an ambassador to Burma. That is the first time we have had an ambassador there in two decades.

The administration also largely waived the investment ban and financial restrictions permitting U.S. businesses to begin investing in that country. However, significant challenges in Burma still lie ahead. Ongoing violence in the Kachin State and the sectarian tensions in the Arakan State reflect a long-term challenge confronting the country related to national reconciliation.

Hundreds of political prisoners remain behind bars. The constitution still has a number of totally undemocratic elements. And the regime's relationship with North Korea, especially when it comes to arms sales with Pyongyang, remains an issue of grave concern to us.

Sanctions with respect to Burma should be renewed in order to provide the administration with the flexibility it needs to encourage continued reforms in that country, to encourage the government to tackle these remaining tough issues. Failure to renew the sanctions could undermine the administration's diplomatic efforts in Burma, which I support, and could send the wrong signal to the Burmese Government that they have done all they need to do. But where are we?

Therefore, the only way I see getting this resolved in time to keep the sanctions from expiring today is for the Senate to go ahead and pass this, and ask the House to pick it up and pass it as soon as they return next week. Hopefully, we can resolve this extremely important issue that other Members have with other sections of S. 3326, completely unrelated to the effort to renew Burma sanctions, and pass those other important trade priorities next week.

In the meantime, this is a terrible message for us to be sending. This is an extremely big issue. It may sound like a small issue; it is a big issue in Burma. Secretary Clinton has been there, I have been there, Senator McCain has been there, and Senator Collins. Senator Feinstein has been active on this issue. This is no small matter in a country that we have been hoping would move in the direction of reform, and finally is.

I know there is always a debate about whether sanctions have made a difference. When I was in Burma in January, in addition to meeting with Suu Kyi I was also meeting with government officials. Every single one of the government officials brought up the sanctions. It convinced me that they must have made a difference. Now, because of the changes that have occurred, the administration and I, who have been involved in this issue for two decades, are in total agreement about the way to handle it, which is to renew the sanctions after which the administration will waive a substantial number of them as a further indication that the sanctions remain there, although not currently operative, because of the changes that have occurred in the country. So I think it is a big mistake to have this important foreign policy matter attached to and stymied by, apparently, differences over other unrelated parts of the measure.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 9; provided further that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of section 3 of H.R. 3326 be inserted in lieu thereof.

For the information of Senators, as I indicated, the Burma sanctions language expires today. This would avoid that.

So I finally ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, if I may, I believe the Burma sanctions bill has been renewed without additional matters attached to it for some 10 years now on an annual basis. I am perplexed as to why this year it was turned into a package.

I agree with the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee that it was agreed to. But there is a dispute between the chairman of the Finance Committee and another member of the Finance Committee who is on the floor, and Senator Coburn can speak for himself. I might say, I don't have a dog in that fight. As far as I am concerned, that is another matter. No matter how important that may be, I doubt a failure to pass the other measure, which doesn't expire until September, creates a major potential foreign policy problem which could well be created by the Burma sanctions bill expiring later today.

I will not argue the rest of the bill is important or unimportant. I frankly don't know much about the rest of the bill. I do know something about the Burma sanctions bill, having offered the original bill 10 years ago and having been on the floor as we renewed it annually during that period, and I am pretty confident this will be perceived in Burma as a problem. It seems to me it is a completely avoidable problem.

As to the rest of it, the Senator from Oklahoma is here and he can speak for himself, so I defer to him and to the chairman of the Finance Committee to discuss the balance of the bill. But it would have been my hope, had the chairman of the Finance Committee not objected, since it was cleared on my side--and it was cleared on my side, regardless of previous understandings about putting the package together, by the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Hatch, and by Senator Coburn--to split the Burma sanctions bill off and pass it freestanding today on a voice vote.

So with respect to the consent agreement I offered, which was objected to, I want to make sure everybody understands there were no objections to it on the Republican side of the aisle.

Mr. President, I would just ask a question of the Senator. What I hear is that the Democratic administration and Democratic Senators are opposed to passing the Burma sanctions bill today freestanding? Is that what I hear the chairman of the Finance Committee saying?

Then why did the Senator object to the request?

But the Senator can't get them both unless he can work this out with my good friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, who is on the floor and who may want to address this matter.

Let me make sure I understand where we are. The consent agreement to pass the Burma sanctions bill today, before it expires, is clear on this side of the aisle--clear. The chairman of the Finance Committee has announced, to my surprise, that the administration does not favor allowing Burma sanctions to pass today because it is attached to something related to other matters.

So make no mistake about it, we have, for the first time in the history of this issue, turned it into a partisan matter. We have spoken with one voice in America relating to Burma, under administrations of both parties and Senates of both parties. Yet today, for the first time, we have a partisan split over an issue about which America ought to be speaking with one voice.

I basically have said all I have to say. I do want to hear from Senator Coburn. I know he has strong feelings about the other part of the measure about which I am basically not familiar.

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

Mr. President, for nearly 4 years now, Democratic leaders in Washington have claimed to want what is best for the economy but done just about everything you can think of from a policy perspective to actually undermine the economy.

Whether it is overwhelming businesses with redtape, burdening them with costly new health care laws or punting on major economic decisions until after the election, Democrats have done everything you would expect of a party more focused on centralizing power in Washington than reviving a weak economy.

And, of course, we have the results to show for it. As a result of the Democrats' policies, we have fewer jobs today than the day the President took office, more signed up for disability assistance last month than got jobs--more people signed up for disability assistance last month than got jobs--and the percentage of Americans who actually can work but are not is at the lowest point literally in decades.

This is the sad legacy of this President's economic policies. And later today we will have a chance to cast a vote for more of the same or for a plan that will help us get off of this hamster wheel we have been on for the past 3\1/2\ years.

I am referring, of course, to the very different proposals we will vote on today for dealing with a looming tax hike coming in January: the Republican plan, which gives every American not only the certainty that their income taxes will not go up at the end of the year but that Congress will deliver meaningful tax reform within a year, and the Senate Democratic plan which raises taxes on a million small business owners at a moment when we are counting on them to create jobs, raises taxes on thousands of family farmers and small business owners grieving the loss of a loved one, leaves a middle-class tax hike in place, and reforms absolutely nothing.

We would also like to vote on the President's plan, though it appears our Democratic friends will deny the President his vote.

I will leave it to others to explain the finer points of these plans. But one thing stands out. As I have indicated, the thing that stands out is the Democratic proposal to raise the death tax. This is one of their bright ideas to revive the economy: to raise the death tax. It dramatically lowers the exemption level, so more families actually get hit by it, and dramatically increases the amount of the tax itself. Under their plan, family members who inherit a farm or a ranch would have to write a check for 55 percent--55 percent--of the value of the property and equipment above $1 million, all but guaranteeing that tens of thousands of small and mid-size family businesses across the country will be broken up and handed over to the government instead of passed on to the next generation.

Look, I know some Democrats will try to justify their vote on this stunningly bad proposal by saying they will deal with the assault on family farms later. Wrong. The Democratic bill we will vote on today, by not addressing the problem, makes the tax liability for these families even worse. A vote for the Democratic plan is to vote to put these farms and ranches literally out of business. There will be no stand-alone bill signed into law on the death tax, and anyone who says otherwise is not being straight with the American people.

But there is one big difference between our plan and theirs. The most important difference is this: Only ours is aimed at helping the economy; only ours is aimed at helping the economy; only ours is meant to help struggling Americans in the midst of a historic jobs crisis. Theirs is meant to deflect attention from their continued failure to reverse this economic situation.

Throughout this entire debate, not a single Democrat has come forward to claim that raising taxes on job creators will help the economy. Nobody is claiming that because they cannot. The real motives are based on an ideological agenda, not an economic one.

Ordinarily, Republicans would do everything we can to keep a plan as damaging as the Democrats' plan from passing, and the only reason we will not block it today is we know it does not pass constitutional muster and will not become law because it did not originate in the House. If the Democrats were serious, they would proceed to a House- originated revenue bill, as the Constitution requires.

That said, the potential consequences of inaction on this issue are so grave that the American people deserve to know where their elected representatives really stand--truly stand--on this issue.

That is why I am announcing this morning Republicans will allow a simple majority vote--a simple majority vote--on the two proposals I have described, and that is why we are also calling for a simple majority vote on the President's plan. He is the leader of the Democratic Party. He has been calling for a vote on his plan. I for one think we ought to give the President what he is asking for: a vote on his plan.

So what I am saying here this morning is, we will have a simple majority

vote on the Senate Democratic plan, on the Republican plan, to make sure no one's income taxes go up at the end of the year, and I would also recommend we have a simple majority vote on the President's plan.

The only way to force people to take a stand is to make sure today's votes truly count. By setting these votes at a 50-vote threshold, nobody on the other side can hide behind a procedural vote while leaving their views on the actual bill itself a mystery--a simple mystery--to the people who sent them here. That is what today's votes are all about: about showing the people who sent us here where we stand.

We owe it to the American people to let them know whether we actually think it is a good idea to double down on the failed economic policies of the past few years or whether we support a new approach, whether we think it is a good idea to raise taxes on nearly a million business owners at a moment when millions of Americans are struggling to find work or to do no harm and commit to future reform.

Three votes, two visions. Three votes, two visions. The American people should know where we stand, and today they will.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that the request be modified to strike the last paragraph and, further, that it also be in order for a second amendment, the text of which will be at the desk and is the President's small business tax hike; further, that it be considered under the same terms of my amendment, and that after the vote on that amendment the Senate proceed to a vote on the McConnell-Hatch amendment as the original request provided for.

Would the Senator yield for a moment? I am going to use my leader time. But I am happy to defer to the Senator from California first.

Mr. President, I will let the Senator from California go ahead.

Madam President, I am going to proceed for a few moments on my leader time.

Madam President, the vote we are about to take on the Democratic plan to raise taxes is interesting for a few reasons. First, it is a revenue measure that didn't originate in the House, so it has no chance whatsoever of becoming law.

Second, it is the perfect example of what you get when you put politics over the people who sent you here. If the Democrats truly believed what the President has been saying out on the stump, they would vote on his plan. But as the vote tally will show, they can barely muster 50 votes on their own plan, let alone his. So for the entire President's talk about supporting a balanced approach to taxes, he evidently can't even get 50 votes for his plan in a Democratic- controlled Senate when we all know he would need 60 votes to get it to his desk.

Instead of voting on the President's plan, our Democratic friends have cobbled together the only thing they could come up with that would muster more than 50 votes--a purely political exercise, and a total waste of time.

But to be honest, I can't imagine why they would want to vote for either one, since both proposals raise taxes on about a million business owners, and both raise taxes on investment, at a time when the economy is in paralysis.

Here is the Democratic plan for the economy: We will get this thing going again--by raising taxes. Let's take more money out of small business and send it to Washington; that is how we will create jobs, they say. Let us create jobs instead of the small business owners out in America. After all, they don't create jobs anyway; of course, Washington creates jobs.

If you are looking for the legislative equivalent of the President's now famous view that ``you didn't build that,'' this is it.

They don't think you deserve to keep what you have earned because you are not responsible for earning it. They don't think you are entitled to keep what you have earned because, after all, you weren't even responsible for earning it; they are.

That is the message Democrats are sending with today's votes, that you are not responsible for your success; Washington is. So give us your money, and we will handle it for you. That is their tax plan. That is their plan for the economy and for jobs.

Fortunately for the American people, there is another approach. Next week, House Republicans will pass a bill that drew broad bipartisan support in this body 19 months ago, and it would draw broad bipartisan support today if Democrats were more concerned about what is best for creating jobs than they were in centralizing power right here in Washington and pleasing their liberal base.

The Republican proposal is to do no harm and to commit to the kind of serious tax reform we all know we need. That is the vote Senate Republicans are proud to take today and House Republicans will take next week. It is the plan Senate Democrats--and the President--would support if they were serious about jobs.

The Democratic plan is to raise taxes on nearly a million business owners and, in a notable departure from the President, threaten tens of thousands of family farms and ranches with a death tax of 55 percent at the end of the year. That is their plan. That is their idea of economic stimulus. That is the bill they would rather vote on than the President's proposal. And it is absolutely the last thing we need right now.

The good news is that this new, convoluted Democratic bill will never make it to the President's desk. It will never make it. The bad news is they will also vote down the one tax plan that should make it to his desk.

We can do better than this. It is time for the Democrats to work with us on rewarding success and not punishing it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first let me welcome the Vice President here today, our good friend who served for so many years in the Senate.

It reminds me of the negotiation he and I conducted in December of 2010. I got a call from the Vice President one day, and he said: The President thought we ought to talk about the possibility of extending the current tax rates for everyone because the economy is not doing very well, and the worst thing we could do would be to raise taxes on anyone in the middle of this economic situation.

I said: Mr. Vice President, I think that is something we would be interested in.

So the Vice President and I negotiated for a period of time and agreed that because the economy was not doing well in December 2010, we ought to extend the current tax rates for everyone.

I can remember the signing ceremony. I was there. The majority leader was not. The Speaker of the House was not. The President made a speech in signing an extension of the current tax rates for everyone that I could have made myself. Forty Members of the Senate on the Democratic side voted for it.

Today, my colleagues, the economy is growing slower than it was in December of 2010. So we know this is not about the economy; we know this is about the election. We all know there is an election going on. There is politics from time to time practiced here in the Senate. I am not offended by that. But I think what the American people would like to hear from us is a response to the economic situation.

This proposal guarantees that taxes will go up on roughly 1 million of our most successful small businesses. Over 50 percent of small business income--25 percent of the workforce--will be affected by it. It guarantees that taxes will go up on capital gains, on dividends, which provide the income for a huge number of our senior citizens. This is a uniquely bad idea. It may poll well, as my friend the majority leader indicated, but, of course, the fact that he needed to mention that illustrates the point that this is more about the election than it is about the economy.

So I would predict there will probably be bipartisan opposition to this proposal. I am sure a few arms have been twisted in order to get the result. The Vice President is at a disadvantage: he can't speak, being an occupant of the chair. But in this particular instance, he is actually better not to because he would have the dilemma of trying to explain the difference between the economic situation the country confronts today and the condition the country confronted in December of 2010 when the economy was doing better. So be grateful, I say to my friend the Vice President. This is a debate I don't think you would want to lead.

With that, my colleagues and friends, I urge a ``no'' vote on this very, very bad idea for the U.S. economy.

Let me briefly add that I listened carefully to what my friend the majority leader said. He once again was making it clear this is about the campaign. It is about the campaign and not about the economy.

But if you listen carefully to the rhetoric, what he is saying here is that these million businesses didn't create this success; that we somehow need to take this money because we will spend it better on their behalf.

Now, I know my colleague is going to get the last word, and that is fine. I am happy for him to have it. But the fact is this: The economy is in worse shape today than it was in December of 2010--worse shape today. The growth rate is slower. The President signed this bill, advocated its passage back then because the economy didn't need to get hit with a big tax increase. The growth rate is slower today. The economic situation remains largely the same. The worst we could do in the middle of this economic condition is to pass this tax increase.

Now my friend the majority leader can have the last word, and then we will be happy to go to a vote.

Mr. President, I heard my good friend the majority leader say this is about the deficit. This will produce enough revenue to operate the government for about 1 week. This would produce about enough revenue to operate the government for about 1 week.

This is not about the deficit or the debt, this is about the campaign. We all know there is a campaign going on, but why don't we do serious legislating here? No budget, no appropriation bills, no DOD authorization bill. When are we going to actually pass things in the Senate?

This is a uniquely bad idea for the economy. The good news that I can say to the American people is that it isn't going to happen today. It ought not to

happen anytime. This is part of the fiscal cliff we are facing at the end of the year. The Chairman of the Fed is concerned about it, the Congressional Budget Office, which Republicans certainly don't run, is concerned about it. We have heard talk on the other side that we should have Thelma and Louise economics and just drive the country right off the cliff. We all get in the car and go right off the cliff together and see what it is like.

The American people know a campaign is going on, but why don't we in here try to do something important for the country now. The campaign will take care of itself. This is not a serious piece of legislation because it is not going anywhere, and thank goodness it is not going anywhere because it would be bad for the economy and the single worst thing we could do to the country.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, as the majority leader has indicated, two legislative milestones have been reached in the Senate today by two dedicated and long-serving Senators who happen to be from different sides of the aisle. I pay tribute to the senior Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, for casting his 14,000th vote, and to the senior Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, for casting his 13,000th vote.

To put these milestones in perspective:

Senator Leahy, a Member of the Senate since 1975, ranks sixth on the all-time rollcall vote list, most recently passing former Senator Pete Domenici. Senator Lugar, who was first elected to the Senate 2 years later, in 1976, ranks tenth on the all-time list and most recently passed our former colleague and current occupant of the chair, Vice President Joe Biden. This is not only a remarkable accomplishment of longevity for both men, it is also an opportunity for their colleagues to honor them for their decades of service to the people of Indiana and of Vermont.

Senator Leahy isn't just the second most senior Senator in this body, he is also the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a senior member of the Agriculture and Appropriations Committees. Pat and I got to know each other pretty well, alternating as chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of Appropriations for over a decade. Somehow he finds time to also be an amateur photographer and to have a blossoming movie career. I have no doubt he gives most of the credit, of course, to Marcelle, his wife, with whom he will be celebrating a far more important milestone in the next month, their 50th wedding anniversary. So congratulations to Pat on both counts.

As for our friend Senator Dick Lugar, I have known him going back to my first Senate campaign. He is the longest serving Member of Congress in Indiana history and one of America's most widely respected voices on foreign policy. In a career filled with many achievements and milestones, Senator Lugar's leadership on the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is, in my opinion, his greatest and most lasting achievement with the American people--not only for the American people and for the security of this country, but for the promotion of peace throughout the world. Because of Senator Lugar's work, thousands of nuclear warheads have been dismantled and the world is, indeed, a safer place.

Like Senator Leahy, I know Senator Lugar would say none of this would have been possible without the love and support of his wife of 55 years, Charlene. So I congratulate them both on this milestone and I join my colleagues in once again paying tribute to

our two colleagues and this signature achievement.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.