Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to start this morning by remembering another deadly shooting, one that hit very close to home for most of us.

It was 14 years ago today that Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective John Gibson of the Capitol Police were shot dead in the line of duty right here in the Capitol by a lone gunman. Their deaths serve as yet another reminder not only of the reality of evil but of the precious gift of life. Today we honor them for their lives and the final act of heroism that ended them.

A plaque inside the Capitol commemorates their sacrifice, and the Capitol Police Headquarters now bears their names. It is appropriate we also pause in the midst of our other duties to honor these men and every member

of the Capitol Police Force who works so hard to ensure our safety.

Officer Chestnut was a 20-year veteran of the Air Force and had 18 years of service to the Capitol Police. Detective Gibson also had 18 years of Capitol Police service, and until the day he died had never drawn his weapon. Both men left behind wives, children, and friends.

Today the Senate honors both of these good men once again and all of those they left behind.

Tax Proposals

Mr. President, as the Senate resumes its work this week, Americans are hungry for leadership. The national debt hovers around $16 trillion. The Federal Government is on track to spend $1 trillion more than it takes in for the fourth year in a row, and Democrats have not done so much as pass a budget in nearly 4 years.

Meanwhile, President Obama is not even talking with us about what to do about any of these things. The taxpayers are basically paying him $400,000 a year to hold campaign rallies and show up at fundraisers. His latest proposal on taxes has more to do with helping his campaign than in reviving the economy. If you want proof, just ask yourself why Democrats don't want to vote on it.

Republicans will head into tomorrow's vote guided by a simple principle: Do no harm. In our view, the best approach to taxes right now is to let every American and every American business know they will not have a higher income tax bill at the end of the year. We think everybody in America should have that certainty.

The Democrats' guiding principle, to the extent they have one, is quite different. To them the goal is not so much relief for struggling Americans or reviving the economy, it is sending a message. Their message is that some people deserve relief and some people don't, and they will decide who those people are regardless of the effect it has on the broader economy or on jobs. It is an approach that isn't based on any economic outcome but on ideology. Americans are quite tired of it because it has been a disaster for our economy.

Think about it. If Democrats cared more about helping folks and reviving the economy, then they wouldn't be calling for a tax hike. Yet throughout this entire debate Democrats have not offered a single credible argument about how their tax increase targeted at job creators will help struggling middle-class Americans. Surely, they don't think this tax increase is the fiscally responsible thing to do.

Let's assume they got this tax increase. It would only generate enough money to fund the government for 5 days. Even if they got the tax increase they want, it would only generate enough money to fund the government for 5 days.

The larger point is this: The Senate should be in the business of actually making a difference rather than just making political statements. That is why we think we should have a vote on all three proposals tomorrow: the President's proposal, the Senate Democrat proposal, and ours. Show the American people what is behind their proposals and what we all stand for. If the Democrats believe the President's rhetoric, they will vote for his proposal, and he will work to get their support.

My guess is that Democratic leaders will not allow a vote on the President's plan, and that should tell us everything we need to know about the Democratic approach to the problems we face. They are either out of ideas, not serious about solving the problems we face or both. To them this is more about messaging or passing the buck than it is about helping anybody or preventing an economic calamity at the end of this year.

The President proposed a plan he thinks will help him on the campaign trail. Democrats proposed a plan they think helps them in the Senate. What about a plan that actually helps the American people? It is all politics and positioning to our friends on the other side of the aisle at this point, and it is quite disgraceful.

The time to act on the problems we face is right now. The fiscal cliff draws closer with each passing day. I think most people think the party in power has some responsibility to do something about it.

I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

Mr. President, we have all been sifting through the events of last Friday, and I think it is entirely appropriate for the Senate to take a moment today to acknowledge, as we just did, the victims of this nightmarish rampage, their families, and the wider community of Aurora.

In the life of a nation, some events are just so terrible they compel all of us to set aside our normal routines and preoccupations, step back, reflect on our own motivations and priorities, and think about the kind of lives we all aspire to live. This is certainly one of those times.

As is almost always the case in moments such as this, the horror has been tempered somewhat by the acts of heroism and self-sacrifice that took place in the midst of the violence. I read one report that said three different young men sacrificed their own lives in protecting the young women they were with. We know the first responders and nurses and doctors saved lives too, including the life of an unborn child.

I think all of us were moved over the weekend by the stories we have heard about the victims themselves. It is hard not to be struck by how young most of them were, of how many dreams were extinguished so quickly and mercilessly, but we were also moved by the outpouring of compassion that followed and by the refusal of the people of Aurora to allow the monster who committed this crime to

eclipse the memory of the people he killed.

President Obama, Governor Hickenlooper, and the religious leaders in and around Aurora are to be commended for the time and effort they have put into consoling the families of the victims and the broader community. I think the best thing the rest of us can do right now is to show our respect for those who have been affected by this terrible and senseless crime and to continue to pray for the injured, that they recover fully from their injuries.

There are few things more common in America than going out to a movie with friends, which is why the first response most of us had to the shootings in Aurora was to think: It could have been any of us. It is the randomness of a crime such as this that makes it impossible to understand and so hard to accept. But as the Scripture says, ``The rain falls on the just and the unjust.''

So we accept that some things we just can't explain. Evil is one of them. We take comfort in the fact that while tragedy and loss persist, so does the goodness and generosity of so many.

Now I would like to join Governor Hickenlooper in honoring the victims by reciting their names:

Veronica Moser-Sullivan, Gordon Cowden, Matthew McQuinn, Alex Sullivan, Micayla Medek, John Larimer, Jesse Childress, Alexander Boik, Jonathan Blunk, Rebecca Ann Wingo, Alexander Teves, Jessica Ghawi.

We too will remember.

Reservation of Leader Time

Madam President, I come before the Senate to recognize the entrepreneurial spirit of Mr. Larry Corum of London, KY. After serving in the United States military for over 20 years, in 1990 he opened a printing business and now is the manager of the London-Corbin Airport. Both his economic leadership and steadfast service to Laurel County make him a valuable asset to the London community.

Born and raised in Clay County, KY, upon his graduation from high school in 1958, Larry attended Sue Bennett College and Eastern Kentucky University. After graduating from EKU in 1965, he joined the U.S. Air Force and became an officer. While in his first years of service, Larry married his wife, Lois. Throughout his 20-year military career, the couple traveled around the country with their two children, Chris and Gienah. Finally in 1989, he retired from the Air Force as a lieutenant colonel and settled in London, KY.

In 1990, Larry opened an American Speedy Printing franchise in the London Shopping Center. After acquiring Durham Printing in 1998, the name of the company changed to Allegra Print and Imaging. In 2008, Larry left the business, entrusting his son, Chris, with running the day-to-day business operations, and became manager of the London-Corbin airport, which is the sixth-largest airport in the State of Kentucky.

Larry has served on many boards in the Laurel County area such as the American Red Cross, the United Way, SCORE, the London-Corbin Airport, Saint Joseph-London, and the executive board of the Chamber of Commerce. His contribution to the London-Laurel County Chamber of Commerce stemmed from a desire to grow the community economically. Through the Chamber of Commerce, Larry was able

to make an economic impact in London and improve the lives of his fellow Kentuckians.

Today, it is my honor to recognize Mr. Larry Corum for his contribution to the Laurel County economy through his own small business and his extensive service to the London-Laurel County Chamber of Commerce. His dedication to the community has made London, KY, an attractive area in which businesses can invest and grow. I ask my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to join with me in celebrating Mr. Larry Corum's service to the greater Laurel County, KY, area.

A recent article published in the Chamber News, a publication of the Laurel County-area newspaper the Sentinel Echo, highlighted Mr. Corum's accomplishments. I ask unanimous consent that said article appear in the Record.

Madam President, today I rise in recognition of U.S. Navy CDR Jeffrey Smith, captain of the USS Kentucky. Commander Smith, a Kentucky native, is the youngest commanding officer of an Ohio-class submarine. The commander has accomplished great feats in his naval career and he proudly represents the State of Kentucky with everything he does. I know he is especially honored to command the ship that bears the name of our beloved Commonwealth.

Commander Smith was born in Covington, KY, and moved to Independence, KY, shortly thereafter. Upon graduating from Simon Kenton High School, he attended Xavier University and then transferred to the University of Kentucky. In 1995, Commander Smith graduated with a degree in physics and was commissioned in the Navy, where he began nuclear power training in Florida.

His dedicated service to the U.S. Navy brought him to the post of commanding officer of an Ohio-class submarine. The youngest man in his position, Commander Smith leads both the Gold and Blue Teams and is charged with overseeing the drills, maintenance, and day to day operations of the USS Kentucky.

Respected as a leader by his crew, Commander Smith also makes time to share his love of his State, the namesake of the submarine, with his men. After each announcement, it has become his trademark to lead the men in a round of ``Go Big Blue'' cheers. A true Kentucky Wildcats fan, he loves to talk University of Kentucky basketball and ``bracketology'' with his men come NCAA Tournament time. By sharing some of these beloved hallmarks of the Bluegrass State, Commander Smith not only shows his own pride in being a Kentuckian, but also provides his men a sense of attachment to the place for which their ship was named.

Commander Smith, besides being an avid UK Wildcats fan, enjoys reading, playing video games, and spending time with his four children. He credits his interests and leadership capabilities to his education from the University of Kentucky. From physics and engineering courses which enable him to effectively operate the ship, to psychology courses which allow him to understand his men and their attitudes in different situations, a diverse educational and experiential background allows Commander Smith to lead his men effectively.

It is my privilege today to recognize a Kentuckian who has truly devoted his life to the service of this Nation. A rising star in the U.S. Navy, CDR Jeffrey Smith has committed himself to excellence and to proudly representing the State of Kentucky. I ask my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to join me in saluting U.S. Navy CDR Jeffrey Smith.

A recent publication by the University of Kentucky newspaper the Kentucky Kernel highlighted the accomplishments of the Commander. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that said article appear in the Record.

Madam President, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Glenn ``Buddy'' Westbrook of London, Kentucky, and his service to both this nation and the State of Kentucky, specifically Laurel County and the surrounding region. Passionate about development of the London community, Mr. Westbrook worked to build the Laurel County economy and strengthen the tourism industry in southeastern Kentucky.

Born in 1930 to J. Hamp and Flo Pearl Westbrook, Buddy Westbrook was raised in London, Kentucky. His nickname, Buddy, stuck when his older sister, Madge, called him Buddy because she could not say Glenn. He began working at an early age when he helped his father separate type for the printing shop the family owned. Buddy enjoyed working because it made him feel grown up. However, like all boys, he enjoyed spending time outdoors, especially at Kidds Pond, and he also had a knack for getting into mischief, such as climbing telephone poles.

Buddy graduated from high school in London but during his sophomore year attended classes at Berea College to study chemistry. After high school he attended Sue Bennett College and worked in his father's gas and LP appliance store. Throughout his life, he was taught that civic duty and serving others was an important part of being a member of a community. In 1950, Buddy joined the U.S. Army and served in Germany during the Korean War.

When he returned to London, Buddy took over his family store. As an active member of the Jaycees, an organization that promotes community development, he was able to attend a conference in Ashland where he met his wife, Jeanne. The couple had eight children. In 1970, Governor Wendell Ford named Buddy to the Kentucky Institute for Children.

In 1975, Buddy was offered a position with the Cumberland Valley Area Development District. His service through this post was especially of benefit to the tourism industry in the region. Not only did Buddy and members of the commission share information about the region at travel shows, but he also organized the first Tourism Industry Development Symposium held in Lexington.

After the death of his wife, Jeanne, and son, Don, in 1983 and 1984, respectively, Buddy understandably endured some difficult times. However, a friend, Susan Mitchell, who later became his wife, helped him through this dark period. After retiring in 1993, Buddy organized Vision 2000 for London, Kentucky, a plan to define goals for the city which ultimately came to fruition during the new millennium.

Buddy Westbrook is truly an outstanding citizen of the London, Kentucky, community. Passionate about the development of Laurel County and the surrounding region, his lifetime commitment to economic and tourism development have proved to be invaluable to southeastern Kentucky. Buddy's dedication to his community is exemplary, and I am privileged today to recognize his many contributions to Kentucky. I ask my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to join me in celebrating Mr. Glenn ``Buddy'' Westbrook. A recent article published in the Sentinel-Echo, a Laurel County-area publication, highlighted his accomplishments. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that said article appear in the Record.

Mr. President, could I ask the majority leader one question related to the vote we are going to have later today?

A number of my Members are asking, in connection with voting to proceed to the bill, whether the bill will be open for amendments.

Well, I would say to my Republican colleagues, apparently the bill will not be open for amendment, and we will take that into consideration in deciding whether to support cloture on the motion to proceed.

Fiscal Cliff

Mr. President, earlier this week, Senate Democratic leaders made clear to the American people where their priorities lie. In case you are wondering, the middle class came in pretty low on the list.

At a moment when more Americans are signing up for disability than finding jobs--listen to that, Mr. President, because this is where the American economy stands today. More Americans are signing up for disability than are finding jobs--Democrats said they think it is a good idea to drive the country off what economists are calling America's fiscal cliff this coming January. You might call it Thelma and Louise economics--right off the cliff.

But whatever one calls it, Democrats are evidently so determined to raise taxes on America's job creators that if we don't let them do it-- if we don't let them do it--they would actually welcome an economic calamity that would rock not only the American economy but the global economy as well. They want to drive us right off the cliff. They would threaten our own economy and the global economy as well.

Needless to say, this isn't a program for jobs or economic growth. It is an ideological crusade--an ideological crusade. Following the President's lead, Democrats are declaring ideological warfare, and the banner they are marching under is emblazoned with a single word: Fairness. Fairness.

Here is the problem: Fairness turns out to be a lot like hope and change. Fairness turns out to be a lot like hope and change. We don't know what it means until it is put into practice. But one thing history, common sense, and basic economics tell us is that it doesn't mean what the Democrats say it does. Because when they say tax the rich, we can be sure the middle class isn't far behind.

Just ask yourself: When was the last time a government program stuck to its original mission? When was the last time?

Federal income taxes initially were only supposed to apply to those with taxable incomes above $500,000 a year, equal to about $11.3 million in today's dollars. And even then the top rate was only 7 percent. Today the Federal income tax starts to pinch as soon as you earn a dollar more than $9,750.

The Social Security tax started out at 2 percent. What is more, Americans were told it would never rise above 6 percent. Yet today the Social Security tax stands at 12.4 percent. And all other things being equal, it will likely have to rise above 20 percent to keep the program solvent. That is the condition of Social Security today.

The alternative minimum tax was designed to hit 155 households back in 1969--155 households. Today it threatens to hit nearly 30 million households at the end of this year.

ObamaCare was supposed to tax the rich. Yet now it turns out the very core of the bill includes a tax on the middle class. In my view, that particular deception turned out to be the difference between the law passing and not passing. They said: Oh, it is not a tax. The Supreme Court says it is a tax, with 77 percent of it hitting people making $120,000 a year and less. And it passed by just a single vote--just one vote. Every single Democrat who supported it is responsible for the law itself and the middle-class tax at the heart of it.

But the bottom line here is that a law we were told didn't hit the middle class, does--big time. And the same goes for the President's latest proposal to raise taxes on those earning more than $200,000 a year. It may be aimed at the top 2 percent now, but like every other program that is supposedly aimed at a few, very quickly this tax will increase to apply to many.

Even the senior senator from New York has said this tax hike will hit a lot of people who aren't rich. I agree with the senior Senator from New York. After all, the revenue from the Democrats' tax increase will only cover 6 percent of next year's projected budget deficit. So who is expected to cover the rest? The middle class, of course.

That is the fine print under every Democratic proposal. They say they are coming after the rich, but the middle class is always next. And America's small businesses are already on the

line. That is one reason Republicans are so adamantly opposed to these proposals.

Yes, it is a terrible idea to raise taxes in the middle of an economic downturn. Yes, government is already way too big. Yes, Democrats have absolutely no more intention of using this new revenue for deficit reduction than they have had in the past. Yes, the President's latest proposal wouldn't even raise enough money to fund the government for a week. And yes, we have no reason whatsoever to believe the President wouldn't continue his crony capitalist ways, spending that money on the pet projects of his political allies.

But the larger point is this: Not only is all this terrible economics, it is completely and totally unfair. The American people shouldn't be on the defense when it comes to keeping what they have earned.

The President may think those who have succeeded in life haven't done so on their own, but anybody who has ever turned a dream into reality knows he is totally wrong about that. They know the sacrifices they have made for their success: the hours of work they have put in, the time away from family, the constant worry about whether they will succeed.

Those who have made it know that what is unfair is being told--being told--they have to now hand over even more than they already are to a President who has done nothing to show he knows how to spend it.

Democrats may think it is good politics to play Russian roulette with the economy. They may think it helps their radical, ideological goals for the country to go off the fiscal cliff at the end of the year. They may look down on any enterprise that isn't controlled by the government. But nobody--nobody--should ever attempt to pretend it is a good idea for the economy or for jobs or for middle-class Americans, because it isn't. That is why Republicans think we should solve these problems now.

That is what I have been calling for all week. It is what I and my colleagues will continue to call for until Senate Democrats realize we weren't sent to play politics--we were sent to serve the American people.

Honoring Our Armed Forces

Specialist Nathaniel D. Garvin

Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I rise to commemorate an honored Kentuckian who has fallen in service to his country.

SPC Nathaniel D. Garvin of Radcliff, KY, died on July 12, 2010, in Kandahar, Afghanistan, while in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. He was 20 years old.

For his service in uniform, Specialist Garvin received several awards, medals, and decorations, including the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the NATO Medal, the Basic Aviation Badge, and the Overseas Service Bar.

Specialist Garvin had the nickname ``Tater,'' given to him by his father Cliff. That is because when he was born on July 4, 1989, he weighed a little more than 5 pounds. ``Wow,'' said Cliff to his wife, Nate's mother Melanie, ``He is not much bigger than a sack of taters.'' The nickname stuck.

Nate may have been on the small side, but he did not shy away from risk. ``He was the daredevil of the family,'' Melanie remembers.

As soon as he was old enough to walk, he had no fears. As

he grew, he would climb trees to the tiptop to get on top of

roofs--scaring his mother, of course.

One story goes to show just how tough Nate was. When he was still just in grade school, Nate's shoulder blade got dislocated, and the school nurse called his parents to come and pick up Nate and take him to the doctor. They did, but somehow in the short time between picking up Nate from school and driving to the doctor's office, Nate managed to pop his own shoulder back into place. ``[He did it] showing no pain at all,'' says Melanie. ``The doctor was shocked, along with his dad and

Madam President, I indicated to the majority leader before the Senate convened today that I wanted to have a discussion, the two of us, on several items.

No. 1, I understand my friend the majority leader, last night on MSNBC, said it was his intention at the beginning of the next Congress, if Democrats were in the majority, to change the rules of the Senate by a simple majority. So I want to begin by asking my friend the majority leader if his comments at the beginning of this Congress, on January 27, 2011, are no longer operative. At that time, my friend the majority leader said:

I agree that the proper way to change Senate rules is

through the procedures established in those rules, and I will

oppose any effort in this Congress or the next to change the

Senate's rules other than through the regular order.

So my first question to my friend the majority leader is: Is that statement no longer operative?

I gather then my friend the majority leader's commitment at the beginning of the Congress, that we would follow the regular order to change the rules of the Senate, is no longer operative. So let me turn to a second area of discussion.

The principal advantage of being in the majority is you get to schedule legislation. And of course there are a number of things that can be done with a simple majority of 51. So I would ask my friend the majority leader why it is his view Republicans have somehow prevented the Senate from passing a budget, which could have been done with a mere 51 votes anytime during the last 3 years?

Madam President, I would say to my friend the majority leader, he knows the Parliamentarian disagrees with his view that we already have a budget. But let us assume for the sake of discussion we do have a budget. Then I would ask my friend the majority leader why we haven't passed a single appropriations bill?

Madam President, what we just heard is that it is not the

Senate's fault, it is the House's fault that the Senate won't schedule appropriations bills that have been marked up in the Senate appropriations committees.

My concern here is that nobody is taking responsibility for the Senate itself. We are not responsible for what the House is doing. And typically these differences in what we call 302(b)s; that is, what each subcommittee is going to spend, are worked out in conference. We can't have a conference on any of the bills because we haven't passed any of the bills across the Senate floor.

So the majority leader doesn't want to do a budget. He doesn't want to schedule votes on appropriations bills. Then I would ask my friend, why don't we do the DOD authorization bill?

Madam President, it is pretty obvious that the reason the Senate is so inactive is because the majority leader doesn't want to take up any serious bills that are important to the future of the country. He mentioned cybersecurity. Why isn't it on the floor? Defense authorization: Why isn't it on the floor? Appropriations bills: Why don't we call them up? These are not partisan bills. They are widely supported. They are the basic work of government, including the budget. And I understand his view is that the Parliamentarian is wrong and that we really did pass a budget. But the budget could be done with a simple majority. The appropriations bills are not partisan in nature. If there are differences in the 302(b)s, they could be worked out in conference, which is the way we did it for years.

We have followed the regular order occasionally, and when we have Senators have been involved, they were relevant in the process. I will give five examples. The Export-Import Bank reauthorization, trade adjustment assistance patent reform, FAA reauthorization, the highway bill, and the farm bill are all examples of when Senators were made relevant by the fact that we took up bills that actually came out of committees, that were worked on by Members of both parties, that were brought up on the floor, amendments were offered, and in the end bills passed.

The core problem here is that my good friend the majority leader as a practical matter is running the whole Senate because everything is centralized in his office, which diminishes the opportunity for Senators of both parties to represent their constituents.

Look, we all were sent here by different Americans who expected us to have a voice, to have an opportunity to effect legislation.

I would say to my good friend the majority leader, we don't have a rules problem, we have an attitude problem. When is the Senate going to get back to normal?

I can recall my friends on the other side saying repeatedly that the difference between the House and Senate is you get to vote; it is not a top-down organization the way the House is, it is really kind of a level playing field in which the majority leader has a little more advantage than any of the rest of us and the right of first recognition, but really, once a bill is called up, it is a jump ball.

What my friend the majority leader is saying is that it is inconvenient, it is hard to work with all these Senators who have different points of view and want to do different things. Well, heck, that is the way legislation is passed. It is not supposed to be easy, and Senators are supposed to have an opportunity to participate.

I would argue that in the examples I just cited where Senators did participate--both in the committee and on the floor--the Senate functioned the way it used to. And all this talk about rules change is just an effort to try to find somebody else to blame for the fact that the Senate has been ruled essentially dysfunctional by 62 efforts by my good friend the majority leader to fill up the tree--in effect, deny Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, the opportunity to offer any amendments he doesn't select. That is the reason we are having this problem. So it doesn't require a rules change, it requires an attitude change. And I sense on both sides of the aisle--this is not just a Republican complaint, I would say to my friend the majority leader. I have talked to a lot of Democrats about this too. They would like to be relevant again, and the way Senators are relevant is for their committee work to be respected and to be important and to become a part of the bill coming out of committee or, if it didn't, an opportunity to offer an amendment to effect it on the floor.

Sure, we don't have rules of germaneness. We generally are able to work that out. When we were in the majority, we got nongermane amendments from the Democratic side, and I used to tell my Members that the price of being in the majority is you have to cast votes you don't want to cast because that is the way you get a bill across the floor and get it to completion.

So I would say to my good friend the majority leader, quit blaming everybody else. It is not the House; it is not the Senate; it is not the motion to proceed. Why don't we operate the way we used to under leaders of both parties and understand that amendments we don't like are just part of the process because everybody here doesn't agree on everything? That would be my thought about how to move the Senate forward.

But at the beginning of this discussion, the majority leader made it clear that what he said at the beginning of the Congress is no longer operative. It is now his view that the Senate ought to operate like the House--it ought to operate like the House, with a simple majority. I think that is a mistake. I think that would be a mistake if I were the majority leader and he were the minority leader, which could be the case by the end of the year. And now I will probably have to argue to many of my Members why we shouldn't do what the majority leader was just recommending about 6 months before.

Let's assume we have a new President and I am the majority leader next time and we are operating at 51. I wonder how comforting that is to my friends on the other side. How does it make you feel about the security of ObamaCare, for example? I think that is worth thinking about.

The Senate has functioned for quite a number of decades without a simple majority threshold for everything we do. It has a good effect because it brings people together. To do anything in the Senate, you have to have some bipartisan buy-in.

My colleagues, do we really want the Senate to become the House? Is that really in the best interests of our country? Do we want a simple majority of 51 to ramrod the minority on every issue? I think it is worth thinking about over the next few months as the American people decide who is going to be in the majority in the Senate and who is going to be the President of the United States.

Madam President, most people think a filibuster is a lot of talking to stop the bill from passing. In fact, cloture is to end debate. And what we have had here on at least 62 occasions while the majority leader was running the Senate are examples of times when Senators were not allowed to talk, not allowed to offer amendments, and not allowed to participate in the process. Cloture is frequently used in order to advance a measure, but, as you can imagine, when Senators have no opportunity to have any input, it tends to create the opposite reaction.

But what is all of this really about? It is about making an excuse for a completely unproductive Senate, much of which could have been done with simple 51 votes, passing a budget, and not even bringing up bills that we all want to act on--all the appropriations bills, the Defense authorization bill. And on the rare occasions when the majority leader has turned to a measure that Senators have been involved in developing, we have come to the floor, we have had amendments, we have had votes, and the bills have passed. That is the way the Senate used to operate.

So this isn't a rules problem, this is a making-excuse argument to try to blame somebody else for the lack of productivity of a Senate that I sense on a bipartisan basis would like to be a lot more productive, which would involve the use of Senators' talents, speaking ability, voting, and debating on the floor of the Senate.

Since when did that go out of fashion?

Yes, we have a big difference of opinion about the way this place is being run. It is not a rules problem; it is an attitude problem. It is a looking for somebody else to blame game.

I say to my friend the majority leader, I think what we need to do is get busy with the serious business confronting the American people. Where is the Defense authorization bill? Where are the appropriations bills? Don't blame it on the House. Don't blame it on Senate Republicans. We want to go to these bills. Our Members have been involved in developing this legislation. In the Armed Services Committee, in the Appropriations subcommittees, Senate Republicans are involved in developing that legislation. We would like to see it brought up on the floor, debated, and considered.

What is more important than funding the government? What is more important than the Defense authorization bill? Why isn't it on the floor? That is my question to the majority leader.

We can have the rules debate later, and apparently we will, but why aren't we doing anything now is my question for my friend the majority leader.

The reason I am having a hard time restraining my laugher, I actually know Norm Ornstein and Tom Mann. They are ultra ultraliberals. Norm Ornstein is the house liberal over at the American Enterprise Institute. Their problem with the Senate is the Democrats don't have 60 votes anymore. Their problem is the Republicans control the House. Their views about dysfunctionality of the Senate carry no weight, certainly with me. I know they have an ideological agenda, always have, and usually admit it--although it is cloaked in this particular instance.

But I think the best way to wrap it up is nobody else is keeping the majority leader from calling up the appropriations bills, from calling up the Defense authorization bill, from calling up a budget. That is his responsibility. He has a unique role in this institution. He has the opportunity to set the agenda, and just because all 100 Senators do not immediately fall into line--and it may be a little bit difficult to go forward--is no excuse for not doing the important and basic work the American people sent us to do. It is time to bring up serious legislation that affects the future of the country that the American people expect us to act on and not expect 100 Senators to all agree on every piece of legislation from the outset.

Passing bills is inevitably difficult but not impossible. That has been demonstrated on at least five occasions when the majority leader allowed the committees to function, allowed the Senate floor to function, allowed Members to have amendments, and we got a result.

Have you tried calling up any of them?

Just one final point on that. The reason it has been difficult to get on bills is we cannot have an agreement with the majority leader to let us have amendments once we do get on the bill. So the reaction on this side is, if the majority leader is not going to let us have amendments, if the only result of invoking cloture on a motion to proceed is that he fills the tree and doesn't allow us to offer any amendments, why would we want to do that? All this is much more easily avoided than you think.

The majority leader is basically trying to convince the American people it is somebody else's fault that the Senate is not doing the basic work of government. Regardless of the blame game, the results are apparent: no budget, no appropriations bills, no Defense authorization. We are not doing the basic work of government and that ought to stop. It is within the purview of the majority leader to determine what bill we try to turn to, and just because it may be occasionally difficult to get to a bill, particularly when the majority leader will not say we can have amendments, is no good excuse for not trying. We spend days sitting around when we could be processing amendments and working on bills. All we would need is an indication from the majority leader that these bills are going to be open for amendment. We tried that a few times and it worked quite well. It is amazing how the Senate can function when Members are allowed to participate, offer amendments, get votes, and move forward. I recommend we try that more often.

Madam President, the final thing I would say is just last week the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye, said his committee has been working hard to have the bills ready to go. To date, the panel has cleared 9 of 12 annual bills. Senator Inouye is quoted, on July 10, just last week, ``After putting us all to work like this I expect some of these bills to pass.''

I recommend that my good friend the majority leader heed the advice of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee of his party, let's pass some appropriations bills.

A good example of the problem is the bill we are on right now. The Stabenow bill bypassed the committee entirely. It was introduced a week ago and placed on the calendar. This is not the way legislation is normally done. It is crafted in somebody's office. Rule XIV is brought up by the majority leader. I expect it has something to do with the campaign. We spent a week on it when we could have done the DOD authorization bill. Chairman Inouye says: Where are the appropriations bills?

That is my point.

What are we doing here? Is the Senate a messaging machine or are we doing the basic work of government? We are not doing the basic work of government, but we can change. There are a vast majority of Senators of both parties who would like to become relevant, who would like to participate in the legislative process, and who would like to do the basic work of governing.

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

Mr. President, we know with some certainty that on January 20, 2013, regardless of who the President is, he will swear, to the best of his ability, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States; that more than 60,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines will remain deployed in Afghanistan, and that our All-Volunteer Force will stand ready to defend American interests in the Strait of Hormuz, in the Republic of Korea, as well as defend our allies across the globe.

Our forces will remain committed on that day to denying the Taliban a return to Afghanistan, to denying al-Qaida a safe haven, to training the Afghan national security forces, and to fulfilling the operational plans of our regional commanders. As important: the troops in the training pipeline and the schoolhouse, the F-35s in production, and the basic research and development programs in progress will provide the capabilities to meet future threats.

What is not certain is whether the President who is sworn in on that day will have to attempt to manage the damage done on January 2, 2013, by across-the-board cuts to the Defense Department of roughly $50 billion. But he will if the President and the Democrats in Congress fail to act on the cuts to defense that the President has insisted on, but which his own Secretary of Defense has said would be ``devastating.''

Let me say that again. These are cuts the President is insisting on, but his own Secretary of Defense says would be ``devastating.''

That is why I and my Republican colleagues call on the President to make his plans for these cuts clear right now. The President owes it to our forces around the world and to their families to put a plan on the table for all to see now rather than waiting until after the November elections pass. To keep these details secret and to leave the defense sequester in place as written would be irresponsible regardless of the outcome of the Presidential election.

Think about it. If Governor Romney is elected, he will be responsible for managing $50 billion of programmatic cuts before he or a new Secretary of Defense has even had a chance to conduct a review of the Defense Department's plans, programs, and strategy. And if President Obama is reelected, the arbitrary spending cuts directed by the Budget Control Act of 2011 that he insisted on would eviscerate the President's own defense strategic guidance issued earlier this year.

No wonder Secretary Panetta has said these cuts would be like ``shooting ourselves in the head.'' The weapons systems and capabilities required to provide a dominant presence in the Asia- Pacific Theater, attack submarines, amphibious ships, marines afloat and ashore, the next generation bomber, completing acquisition of the F-35, and the Ford class aircraft carriers will be required to deter and defeat aggression and to project power.

Investments in these capabilities must be made while we continue to combat and pursue al-Qaida, deploy and equip special operations forces, and, of course, seek to deter Iran. That is why the President should prepare for the possibility of a possible transition in power now and should do so with the same foresight and concern for our operations that previous administrations have demonstrated.

The last two transfers of political power, that from President Clinton to President Bush, and that from President Bush to President Obama, are instructive in how past administrations have managed the transition of the Defense Department's leadership both in peace and in war.

Early in 2001, before the Senate majority changed control from that of Republicans to Democrats, before the attacks of September 11, and before an envelope containing anthrax was sent to the Hart Building, Secretary Rumsfeld assumed his duties as the Secretary of Defense. He informed the Congress that he would conduct a strategic review of the Department's plan and programs and submit an amended budget later in the year.

That document was ultimately provided to the Congress in June 2001. Secretary Rumsfeld had months--literally months--to develop an initial plan. And this, by the way, was prior to the war on terror, or as we thought it then, during peacetime.

At the end of the second term of President Bush, Secretary Gates found himself responsible for the first Presidential transition during wartime in 40 years. Secretary Gates established a transition staff and a briefing process to ensure all incoming Obama administration officials were well prepared during a time of war. He encouraged political appointees to remain in office and to help with the new administration. Ultimately, he ended up staying on as Secretary.

Just consider the plight of what a President-elect may face in January 2013. Iran has shown no willingness to end its uranium enrichment effort. A young, inexperienced, untested leader is in charge of North Korea. The Taliban patiently waits for the United States and NATO to withdraw from Afghanistan. And al-Qaida's senior leadership, though weakened, and al-Qaida and an affiliate remain determined to strike the homeland. Egypt and Libya struggle with forming new governments. The revolt in Syria threatens regional stability, and al- Qaida affiliates stay active in Mali, North Africa, and Yemen.

As the next President attempts to have his Cabinet Secretaries confirmed, he will be dealing with managing a disruption in procurement contracts and deliveries, actions that are likely to elevate the cost of weapons systems and lead to layoffs in our industrial base. Troops preparing for deployment will see training curtailed. Permanent change- of-station orders will likely be delayed. Training and maintenance readiness levels will decline. All of this will occur while a new administration is reviewing war plans in Afghanistan.

Think of what this would say to a President-elect: As you are developing your new national security strategy, attempting to seat your Cabinet, and assessing the war in Afghanistan, the sequester will slash every program under review. Welcome aboard, sir. You have your hands full.

More important is what this will say to every soldier and marine still fighting in Regional Command East: Despite the outcome of the election, you may still be fighting the Taliban, attempting to train and mentor an Afghan soldier, conducting a drawdown of forces, and handing off operational responsibilities at the same time the funding of your operational training, weapons maintenance, and operations of your base childcare center are being slashed. If you are wounded, the funding for the defense health program and the care you receive will also be cut. That is why allowing the sequester to go into effect as currently written and as demanded, demanded by the President, would break faith with the forces we have sent abroad.

To confront a new President with this level of disruption as he transitions to wartime command would be deeply irresponsible. We must deal with defense sequestration prior to the election. The sequester should be equally concerning to President Obama.

In January of this year, the Department of Defense released strategic guidance that entails a rebalancing of our forces with an emphasis on a growing presence in the Asia-Pacific Theater. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the counterinsurgency strategy used in both campaigns required an expansion of our Marine Corps and Army ground forces. President Obama has announced plans to reduce the Army by 72,000 soldiers between 2012 and 2017 and the Marine Corps by 20,000 between 2012 and 2017. Yet the force structure required to conduct counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan is far different from that required to convince friend and foe alike that our presence in Asia is significant and sustainable.

We must invest in a new generation of warfighting capability. The President's budget insufficiently funds this new strategy, and that is actually before sequestration. This year's budget request delayed construction of a large-deck amphibious ship, a new Virginia-class submarine, and announced the early retirement of other ships. These reductions are envisioned without those related to sequestration. Naval, air and forced-entry capabilities to combat anti-access weapons are the capabilities required under the new strategy, and they are underfunded in the President's budget. This comes at a time when military expenditures in Asia are outpacing those in Europe.

Let me be clear. The failure of the administration to match the President's budget request to his new strategy is not an argument for growing the defense top line, it is emblematic of the difficulty our regional commanders will have in fulfilling current operational plans before you even get to the sequester.

Although the administration has emphasized that the rebalancing of our forces in Asia is not a strategy to confront the growth of China's military, if we fail to match our commitment to Asia with the requisite force structure, China's influence, military posture, and sphere of influence will actually expand. As the Pentagon's own Annual Report to Congress makes clear, China is committed to annual military spending increases of roughly 12 percent, and it has undertaken a broad-based effort to expand the capabilities of the People's Liberation Army.

Both Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey have made it clear that the ability of our Armed Forces to execute the new strategy under sequestration would be at risk. As General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has stated, under sequestration, ``it's coming out of three places: equipment and modernization--that's one. It's coming out of maintenance, and it's coming out of training. And then we've hollowed out the force.''

In his new strategic guidance, President Obama articulated a commitment to our enduring national security interests; the security of our Nation, allies, and partners; the prosperity that

flows from an open and free international system; and a sustainable international order. Needless to say, those interests will be extremely difficult to maintain with a hollow force.

Just as the next President will take the oath on Inauguration Day, we too take an oath as Senators. We have a responsibility to raise and support armies and provide and maintain a navy. If we let sequestration as currently written go forward and do not act, we will have failed. That is why I am so disappointed with the President's failure of leadership on this issue and that of Senate Democrats as well.

Both House and Senate Republicans have offered proposals to replace the savings from sequestration with more thoughtful and targeted spending cuts. Both of those proposals also either eliminated or reduced the sequester on nondefense programs as well.

Last week, Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Senator Kyl, and I sent a letter to the President asking him to work with us to find a bipartisan solution before the end of the fiscal year. With a $3.6 trillion annual budget, clearly there is a smarter, more thoughtful way to achieve at least $110 billion in savings.

It is simply outrageous that this President and Senate Democrats are missing in action on this issue. We are committed to finding a solution on this before we recess for the election. Are they? Or are they committed to jeopardizing our national security? When will they sit down and work with us to find a solution?

The House overwhelmingly passed the Sequestration Transparency Act today by a vote of 414 to 2. This bill is modeled after a Thune- Sessions bill. It asks the President's Office of Management and Budget to submit a report to Congress on the impact of sequestration on both defense and nondefense programs. Every single Democrat in the House Budget Committee supported it--every one. Will that bill die in the Senate because Democrats not only do not want to address sequestration, they want to hide the ball on the impact of sequestration until after the November elections? If they resist this effort to get more information on sequestration out in the open, it is clear that they wish Congress to be both blind and mute when it comes to our national defense and the fate of those who volunteer to defend it.

We need President Obama to tell this Congress his plan for avoiding the sequester, for preventing the gutting of his strategy, for responsibly transitioning to a new Commander in Chief, and for keeping faith with the warriors we have sent into combat. In all of this, our overriding objective--in fact, our duty--should be to work with the President to achieve the level of savings called for in the Budget Control Act without doing harm to our national security or to our military.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

With regard to the impact on the economy, I wonder how many Boeing employees, for example, there may be in the State of Washington. Does the Senator have a number on that?

So I say to the Senator from Texas, it is not just the impact on the military, which is devastating enough, but on our economy as well, correct?

Mr. President, last week, in response to another disappointing month of job growth, President Obama issued a truly bizarre ultimatum--a truly bizarre ultimatum: Let me raise taxes on a million businesses or I will raise taxes on everybody. Let me raise taxes on a million businesses or I will raise taxes on everybody.

Yesterday, Democratic leaders in Congress took this strange new economic theory--whereby politicians purport to help job creation by hurting job creators--to dizzying new heights. Yesterday, Senate Democratic leaders said they would actually prefer--prefer--to see America go off the so-called fiscal cliff this coming January--along with the trauma that would unleash on our economy--than let businesses maintain their existing tax rates. That was the position of Democratic leaders yesterday: They would rather see America go off the fiscal cliff in January than let a million businesses maintain their current tax rates.

It is an astonishing admission--an astonishing admission. Democrats in Congress are now saying they would rather see taxes go up on every American at the end of the year than let about a million businesses keep what they earn now. They would rather let taxes go up on everybody in the country rather than allow a million businesses to keep the money they earn now.

This isn't an economic agenda--it is not an economic agenda--it is an ideological crusade. This morning, Ernst & Young is releasing a study which shows that President Obama's plan to raise taxes on these businesses will result in 710,000 fewer jobs. What a great idea: Let's raise taxes on a million of our most successful small businesses and eliminate 700,000 jobs in the middle of the most tepid recovery in anybody's memory. What a terrific idea. For those who manage to keep their jobs, real aftertax wages would fall by an estimated 1.8 percent, meaning living standards would decline as government sucks more capital out of the economy.

The President's proposal, in other words, is a recipe for economic stagnation and decline--a recipe for economic stagnation and decline. But the Murray proposal--the idea we should raise taxes on everybody-- is even worse. Not only would it trigger another recession, it would put the global economy at risk. Here is the Democratic theory: that a massive income tax increase on 140 million American taxpayers wouldn't be so bad because the effects wouldn't be felt right away. It wouldn't be so bad because the effects wouldn't be felt right away.

This bizarre conclusion can only be reached by politicians and budget analysts who have never worked a day in the private sector, who don't understand what goes into cutting a paycheck for employees, and who don't have a concept of the planning--the planning--that is necessary to operate a business on thin margins in a tough economy.

This shows how out of touch these people are, to rely on the analysis of Ivy Tower liberals instead of listening to the jobs groups that have been pleading with us to fix this problem sooner rather than later and end the uncertainty that is acting like a big wet blanket over our entire economy.

Today another nonpartisan group, the Business Roundtable, urged Congress to adopt the Republican plan to extend current tax law for a year and make a bridge to tax reform. In a letter to Congress, the group's chairman, Boeing CEO Jim McNerney, warned:

Without effective action soon, this uncertainty will spawn

a dangerous crisis, threatening our economy, businesses and

workers.

What Republicans have been saying is that we should eliminate this uncertainty right now. We should eliminate the uncertainty that Boeing employees--nearly 85,000 of whom work in Washington State--and so many others are facing right now. We should tackle these problems now rather than waiting until the end of the year.

Let me just boil it down. Faced with the slowest economic recovery in modern times, chronic joblessness, and the lowest percentage of able- bodied Americans actually participating in the workforce in literally decades, Democrats' one-point plan to revive the economy is this: You earn, we take. You earn, we take is apparently the only thing they have.

Surely we can do better. I know we can, and so do the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leadership Time

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

Mr. President, later today Senate Democrats will show where their legislative priorities truly lie.

At a moment when the American people are reeling from the slowest economic recovery in modern times, and just 5\1/2\ months away from the culmination of tax hikes and spending cuts already being referred to around the world as America's fiscal cliff, Senate Democrats want us to waste our time on the DISCLOSE Act, a bill that has only two discernible purposes: to create the impression of mischief where there is none, and to send a signal to unions that Democrats are just as eager to do their legislative bidding as ever.

Think about it. We have had 41 straight months of unemployment above 8 percent. It has been more than 3 years since the Democratic Senate passed a budget, but this is what they want to do.

For months Republicans have been urging Democrats to do something about the approaching fiscal cliff now, before it is too late. The American people don't expect us to see every crisis that comes around the corner, but they should be able to expect us to do something about the problems we do see and that we know are coming. Yet last week President Obama signaled that he and his campaign advisers think it is good politics to keep the threat of these looming tax hikes on everyone right on the table as supposed leverage in an effort to raise taxes on nearly 1 million business owners right now.

As the Washington Post reported this morning, not only do Democrats in Congress agree with him, they are ready and willing to go right off the fiscal cliff if they don't get their way. In their near fanatical crusade to inflict even more pain on American businesses, Democrats are now openly admitting that they plan to wait until this debate reaches full throttle and Americans are panicked about the outcome to do anything because they think it will make it more likely they will get their way. And if they don't, then so be it. They are ready to accept the economic and fiscal consequences. They see a crisis coming, and they don't want to waste it.

The Congressional Budget Office has said that not doing anything and walking off this fiscal cliff would lead to a recession. The IMF chief says it would threaten the global economy. Yet Senate Democrats today are announcing they are perfectly ready and willing to accept all that if Republicans don't allow them to raise taxes on the very businesses we are counting on to create the jobs we need.

This is what passes for governance among Democrats these days: Put the American people up against a wall, pick their pockets, and then hope that in the midst of the scuffle they will blame it--and the recession that would follow--on the Republicans.

Now, let's make no mistake. What the Democrats are proposing today is an entirely avoidable high-stakes game of chicken with the single- minded goal of taking more money from those who earn it for government to waste. The President made it very clear over the

weekend that he doesn't think entrepreneurs are responsible for their own success. They owe it to the government. Successful entrepreneurs owe their success to the government. That is the attitude driving everything this President and his Democratic allies in Washington are doing right now. Their one-point plan for getting America back on track is clear: You earn, we take. And if they don't get to impose it, then they will welcome a recession.

They are so single-mindedly focused on taking the earnings of others for themselves and spreading it around--in the President's famous phrase--that they are recklessly ignoring any proposal to prevent the coming crisis in order to achieve it.

Last week Senate Republicans proposed a legislative solution which ensures that no one sees their income tax go up--no one--at the end of the year, legislation that creates a path for the kind of fair, broad- based comprehensive tax reform members of both parties claim they want and which would give individuals and businesses the certainty they have been asking us to give them since the very beginning of the administration.

We could have passed this completely reasonable proposal last week and put the anxiety of millions of Americans at ease with a single vote, but Democrats, of course, refused. They would rather keep the crisis unresolved, keep it looming out there on the horizon. They think it gives them a political edge. They think it is good politics. And they should be ashamed. They should be ashamed.

Consider this: It has been nearly 1 year since the President demanded $500 billion in automatic cuts to defense at the end of this year. Yet with the date now fast approaching, we still don't know how he intends to handle it. The President's campaign wants people asking whether his opponent is hiding something on a 10-year-old tax return. How about what this President is actually concealing about his plans to slash defense? With just a few months to go before these cuts devastate communities all across the country, the President has yet to outline his plans.

Republicans in the House have already passed, and Senate Republicans have proposed, concrete plans to avoid these devastating cuts to our national defense. Our uniformed military deserves the certainty that their operations, training, support, and weapons systems will be fully funded. Meanwhile, the President hasn't demonstrated the least bit of interest in this issue--no interest whatsoever. He hasn't said a thing. He is apparently more interested in blowing smoke about his opponent's tax returns than in talking about the tax hike he actually plans to impose on the very businesses we are counting on to create the jobs Americans need--not some other day but right now.

He would rather spend his time raising unfounded suspicions about a guy whose entire professional career has been a dress rehearsal for bringing order to a government that has become so bloated, so inefficient, and so bureaucratic that it is crying out for the kind of leadership and reform Democrats simply refuse to provide. He would rather attack a guy who has succeeded at just about everything he has ever done than propose a solution himself. And the reason, of course, is perfectly clear: Washington Democrats are worried he might succeed at reforming government too. They don't want to give him the chance.

Think about it. The economy is flat on its back, millions are struggling to find work, and Democrats aren't outlining a solution. They are plotting about how to take advantage of it to advance an ideological agenda most Americans oppose and to cast doubt about anybody who poses a serious threat to the crony-capitalist bureaucratic favor factory right here in Washington.

Where the rest of us see the worst economic recovery in modern times, Democrats see another opportunity to use a crisis to grow the government, and that is what they are focused on--not on providing hope and relief for already struggling Americans but providing more tax dollars for the government to waste and misdirect. In the meantime they will waste our time with bills like this one which they know will not pass but will give them a chance to make a fuss about a problem that doesn't exist--and blow a kiss to the unions for good measure.

But if we are going to have to vote on proceeding to this bill, I would like to take a moment to explain why it is not only exhibit A in how completely irresponsible Democrats are being right now, but why it is such a terrible idea in itself.

First, a point on process. When the history books are written, the 112th Congress may well be known as the Congress of irrelevant committees--the Congress of irrelevant committees. There once was a day when committees held hearings on bills, debated them, offered amendments, and reported them out for full Senate consideration. Now it is find a bill, put it on the calendar, move to proceed, file cloture, lose, and repeat. That is today's Senate. Committees are not being used to generate good legislation. In other words, they are viewed as an obstacle to overcome in the effort to make a point in front of the cameras on the Senate floor. The latest such effort is the DISCLOSE Act, a bill aimed at doing something about people exercising their first amendment rights to participate in the process.

My question is, do something about what? Do something about races which previously would not have been competitive but now are? Do something about individuals and organizations criticizing unpopular positions and policies? Do something about groups advocating on behalf of their members to promote or oppose the very positions for which their members joined? As George Will has pointed out, the political process is not a private club with the parties and the candidates controlling membership. Under the Citizens United decision of 2010, independent groups are now able to speak, again, under the first amendment regardless of who, when, and about what they are speaking. This is something Democrats should be celebrating, not excoriating.

The Founders envisioned a nation in which speech would be promoted as widely as possible. That is what the first amendment is all about, particularly when it comes to the political process. The purpose of this legislation is totally clear. After Citizens United, Democrats realized they could not shut up their critics so they decided to go after the microphone instead by trying to scare off the funders. As Senator Schumer put it during debate on an earlier version of this bill, `` . . . the deterrent effect should not be underestimated.'' That was Senator Schumer on the real purpose of this bill: ``The deterrent effect should not be underestimated.''

Just as with the DISCLOSE Act of 2010, this amounts to nothing more than member and donor harassment and intimidation and is all part of a broader government-led intimidation effort by this administration. There are parallel efforts going on at the FCC, the SEC, the IRS, the DOJ, and the White House itself to silence its critics.

The creation of a modern day Nixonian ``enemy's list'' is currently in full swing and, frankly, the American people should not stand for it. As I have said before, no individual or group in this country should have to face harassment or intimidation or incur crippling expenses defending themselves against their own government simply because the Government does not like the message they are advocating. But that is what we are seeing.

My own view has always been, if you cannot convince people of the wisdom of your policies, then you need to come up with some better arguments. Instead, the left has resorted to tactics such as the pending legislation. This legislation is an unprecedented requirement for groups to publicly disclose their donors, stripping a protection recognized and solidified by the courts. As a result of this legislation, advocacy groups ranging from the NAACP to the Sierra Club, to the Chamber of Commerce, all of which already disclose their donors to the IRS, would now be forced to subject their members to public intimidation and harassment. Why? For supporting organizations and groups whose goals they agree with.

Predictably, unions are exempted from the kind of disclosure Democrats now want to impose on everybody else. The so-called stand by your ad provision in an earlier version has done a

David Copperfield and entirely vanished.

I am not advocating for the provision but simply to note its absence, which proves the primary goal of this bill is not good government or transparency but targeted speech suppression. That is what this is about--targeted speech suppression.

I have to give the authors credit, whoever they are. They actually list labor unions as a covered organization in the bill. However, through an elaborate scheme of thresholds and triggers, they might as well have saved the ink, since unions are largely given a free pass by this bill, despite the fact they are, by far, the biggest players in political campaigns in our entire country. No one else comes close-- almost all of it, of course, on the Democratic side.

As the Wall Street Journal reported last week, labor unions spent a total of $4.4 billion on campaigns from 2005 to 2011, a staggering amount of money and perfectly within their rights, I would add, under the first amendment.

Let's be clear. The other side may be able to whip the media up into a lather over the increased participation of individuals and groups that do not like the direction this President has taken our country, but the big money is coming from the left in the form of mandatory dues to labor unions. To the left, big money from individuals and corporations is a problem. But the nearly $800 million spent by unions in 2008, oh, that is just fine and dandy--as long as nearly 100 percent of it goes to their own campaigns.

As supporters of this legislation have readily admitted, the real target of this bill is to protect themselves from criticism over their wildly unpopular policies and positions. This is precisely why this legislation has been opposed by business groups from coast to coast and opposed by everyone from the NRA--which is key voting this vote--to the ACLU, to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I greatly appreciate all the effort these folks have put into educating and advocating on this issue.

I will certainly do everything in my power to protect the first amendment rights from DISCLOSE, the sequel, and I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with me in voting no. We have many serious problems in this country. Too much free speech is not one of them.

Democrats can call this bill whatever they want, but they cannot conceal its true intent, which is to encourage their allies and discourage their critics from exercising their first amendment right to speak their mind. If Democrats do not like the level playing field ensured by the first amendment and reaffirmed by Citizens United, they should do a better job convincing the American people of the wisdom of their policies and focus on real problems instead of inventing ones that do not exist. To this point, I once again urge our friends to put the political games aside and do something now about the fiscal cliff that is approaching before it is too late. Our Nation has been mired in an economic coma for years. More people signed up for disability last month than found a job. The number of Americans on food stamps continues to climb. It is all about to get worse, and we have a President who is on a single-minded crusade to punish business owners even more.

Republicans have proposed serious, concrete ideas for addressing the problems we face, but we cannot do any of it if the President and his Democratic allies in Congress refuse to join us. Unfortunately, that is where we are. Democrats have made their priorities perfectly clear and, sadly, the American people they were elected to serve appear to be very much at the bottom of the list.

I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

Madam President, for 40 straight months we have had unemployment above 8 percent and a debt the size of our economy. Yet our friends in the majority want to get us to pass a bill that everybody from the ACLU to the NRA is opposed to, a bill designed to give the government the information to intimidate people who have the courage to stand up to the government and argue against what it is doing.

Not only should we not be doing this in good times but to waste the Senate's time on a proposal totally without merit at a time when our economy is in the tank is the ultimate waste of the Senate's time. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the remaining time.

Mr. President, today I am privileged to honor Mrs. Virginia Ruth Long of Owsley County, KY. Mrs. Long, wife of Booneville mayor Charles Long, passed away at age 92 on March 27, 2012. A lifelong resident of Owsley County, Mrs. Long, a mother, beautician, and homemaker, was truly beloved by the Booneville community. It is with great respect that I recognize the First Lady of Booneville and her lifetime of commitment and service to Booneville and the people of her community.

Mrs. Long was born in Indian Creek, KY, on October 1, 1919. She graduated from Owsley County High School in 1938. Upon her graduation, she attended cosmetology school in Lexington. After completing her schooling, Mrs. Long returned to her home, Owsley County, where she opened the first beauty shop in Booneville.

In 1939, she married Charles Long. The two were married for 73 years and had two children: Charlotte and Charles Edwin. Mrs. Long not only raised her children and maintained the home but also worked for 62 years in her beauty parlor. She quickly became a staple of Booneville, and many women in Owsley County recall her being the first person to ever style their hair professionally.

Ruth's contributions to the Booneville community stemmed from running a business, raising a family, and playing a major role in her husband's public career. A World War II veteran and mayor of Booneville for 54 years, Charles Long is no stranger to public service. Through the many years that Charles has served the Booneville community, Mrs. Long remained a constant partner to him and accompanied him on many trips he made as Booneville mayor.

Though Ruth was a source of strength for her husband, Mr. and Mrs. Long equally relied upon one other. During one of Mr. Long's trips as Booneville mayor, Mrs. Long fell and broke her hip. Despite the demands of his public post, Mr. Long extended his trip by 3 weeks to help her recover from her injury. The couple was again tested in 2010 when their daughter, Charlotte, passed away. Though this tragic time was very difficult, as it would be for any parent who loses a child, Mr. and Mrs. Long's faith and reliance upon each other helped them to cope with such a great loss. Ultimately, Ruth was able to still find joy in her life through her grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Apart from being loved by her family, Mrs. Long was beloved by the Owsley County community. She was a faithful member of the First Presbyterian Church of Booneville. She was also famed for having the best angel food cake in the county. However, more importantly, it was her warm, inviting nature that caused members of the community to come to love and admire Mrs. Long. An avid storyteller, she was a friend to all. After her death, many members of the community said they became better people by knowing Mrs. Long.

I am honored to memorialize Ruth today as a lifetime servant of Owsley County. Without holding public office, she dutifully served her Booneville community through her devotion to her husband, Mayor Charles Long, and her life of friendship with its citizens. Kentuckians who live dedicated, humble lives of service like Mrs. Long are what make our Commonwealth strong. Today I ask my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to join me in remembering Mrs. Virginia Ruth Long, the First Lady of Booneville, KY.

Mr. President, an article was recently published by the Booneville Sentinel, an Owsley County-area publication, recognizing the life of Mrs. Long. I ask unanimous consent that said article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, yesterday, something truly remarkable happened right here in the Senate. First, Democrats blocked a vote that the President of their own party called for just 2 days earlier.

Last night, the majority leader moved to shut down a debate on taxes that hadn't even begun.

Earlier this week, President Obama issued an outrageous ultimatum to Congress: Raise taxes on about 1 million business owners and I promise not to raise taxes on anybody else.

At a moment when the American people are reeling from the slowest recovery in modern times, when the percentage of those who could work are working is at a three-decade low, and just 5 months away from the economic body blow that will result if tax rates spike, as scheduled on January 1, the President's solution is to take away more money from the very business folks we are counting on to create jobs we need, presumably so he can spend it on solar companies and stimulus bills.

This was the President's brilliant economic solution to the mess we are in.

Naturally, Republicans oppose this. The way we see it, nobody should see an income tax hike right now, not small businesses, not individuals, nobody. Nobody should get a tax hike right now. The problem isn't that Washington taxes too little but that it spends too much. Rather than just talk about it, we thought we should actually take a vote on it.

After all, the President himself boasted Monday that he would sign a bill to raise taxes on small businesses right away if we pass it. So we suggested two votes, one on the President's plan--once it is actually written--and one on ours. But the majority leader in the Senate blocked it from happening. Why? Because, as usual, Democrats want to have it both ways.

Two years ago, when the economy was growing faster than it is now, 40 Democrats in the Senate voted to do precisely what Republicans are proposing right now: keep everybody's taxes right where they are and do no harm. The President apparently doesn't want any of them to vote that way now.

In other words, he doesn't want to do what is right for the economy and jobs. He wants to do what he thinks is good for his reelection campaign. For some reason, his advisers think it helps him to take more money away from small, already-struggling businesses and spend it on more government. That is the plan anyway, and he wants to stick with it.

Yesterday, the Democratic majority leader did what the President told him to. He made sure there wasn't a vote on a proposal the President of his own party demanded 2 days earlier. My friend, the majority leader, made sure there wasn't a vote on the plan the President asked for just 2 days ago. Then he offered a vote on a bill today that isn't even written and only if Democrats and Republicans give up their ability to offer amendments to the bill we haven't seen yet.

This is the kind of absurdity we get when we have a governing party that is more concerned with winning an election than facing the consequences of the President's failed economic policies. But it actually gets even more absurd because the majority leader didn't just block us yesterday from having votes on whether to raise taxes, he wouldn't even let us have a debate about it--don't have the vote and don't have the debate.

Senators on both sides of the aisle have proposals that would help the American people weather the economic crisis we are in. Senator Hutchison has an amendment that would extend the relief from the blow of the marriage penalty. Senator Heller has a plan to extend the deduction of sales tax in Nevada. Senator Scott Brown and a whole host of other Republicans have a proposal to repeal the potentially devastating tax on medical devices that is being used to help fund ObamaCare. Senators Cornyn and Crapo have amendments that would lessen the blow of the tax hikes on investments--tax hikes that will directly affect job creation and harm those, such as our seniors, who are living on fixed incomes.

As for the Democrats, well, even they have some ideas that might do some good for the country. Senator Brown of Ohio has an amendment to extend the research and development credit, which I know has bipartisan support even if Republicans might differ in his approach. Senator Begich has an amendment that would extend the popular tax breaks for investments by small businesses. I don't fully endorse the specific approach taken by these two, but if they had a chance to offer and debate them, I think we might be able to work out an agreement and actually get a result. But we can't even have a debate or get a vote on these Democratic amendments because of the politics.

Personally, I can't imagine why Democratic Senators would tolerate this kind of authoritarian approach. It seems to me that if Senator Brown of Ohio and Senator Begich really believe in their amendments, they would fight for a vote on them. It is hard to believe their constituents sent them here to rubberstamp everything the party leader puts out there regardless of the impact on their States. We would probably have these votes later today if these Democratic Senators vote to cut off debate. I will leave it up to them to explain to their constituents why they didn't think these amendments deserved votes.

But the larger issue is this: All of these petty political maneuvers betray an astounding lack of concern about not only the economic crisis we are in but the threat that is posed by the fiscal cliff we all know is looming in January. A New York Times article from just this morning suggests that one reason the economy has slowed down so much is that businesses are reacting to the uncertainty about what will happen at the end of the year. Well, of course that is the case. We hear it from everyone. Yet here is a Democratic-controlled Senate blocking votes, blocking debate, and hosting private meetings with the President's political advisers on strategy instead of working on serious bipartisan solutions.

Last night Democratic leaders admitted that the bill they wanted Republicans to turn to hasn't even been written yet. Think about that. The proposal the President announced Monday with so much fanfare hasn't even been put on paper. Yet Democrats wanted us to move to it. Move to what? What is it? We haven't seen it. I think it hasn't been written. You can't move to a speech. This is the level of seriousness we are seeing from the Democratic-controlled Senate right now. This is how seriously they take this economic crisis. It is nothing but one political game after another. If the President has a proposal, we will be happy to send an intern down to the White House to pick it up, but we can't vote on a speech. Frankly, we can't continue like this.

It is long past time Democrats in the White House and in the Senate took the lives and challenges of working Americans as seriously as they take their politics. It is time to put childish things aside and get down to serious business for the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Order of Business

Mr. President, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, has just passed an important milestone, her 5,000th consecutive rollcall vote, a tenacious accomplishment indeed that represents the work ethic and dedication Senator Collins has for the people of Maine and for the Senate. We all know she is one of the hardest working Members of the Senate.

Listen to this. Since she was sworn in, in January, January 3 of 1997, she has been present for every single rollcall vote. That is over 15 consecutive years, never missing a vote.

Senator Collins is actually in quite an elite company. Recently, she passed Senator Byrd and is now third all time behind Senator Chuck Grassley and the late Bill Proxmire from Wisconsin. I know she took great pride also in being in the company of her role model, a woman who played a major role in her decision to run for public office in the first place, fellow Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith, who is currently No. 5 on the list.

On behalf of the entire Senate, I congratulate Senator Collins for this milestone.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend of mine and a good friend to the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Mr. Dennis T. Dorton. After a successful, lifelong career in banking culminating in his service as president and chief executive officer at Citizens National Bank, Mr. Dorton will retire this month.

A native of Paintsville, KY, Dennis Dorton has worked at Citizens National Bank for 42 years. He joined the bank in 1970 following his graduation from Morehead State University, where he earned a bachelor's degree in business administration. Dennis also attended Paintsville High School and is a graduate of National Investment School University of Oklahoma, National Trust School Northwestern University, and attended Stonier Graduate School of Banking at Rutgers University.

Dennis is well known and well regarded throughout the State's banking community for his career of accomplishment. He served as treasurer for the Kentucky Bankers Association and was that organization's chairman in 2007-08. He is also on the Board of Trustees for the Kentucky Hospital Association and the Highlands Regional Medical Center. His many other civic and community service efforts include his work as treasurer and board member of the Paintsville-Johnson County Chamber of Commerce, chairman of the Appalachian Artisan Center, treasurer of the Kentucky Historical Society Foundation, and vice chairman and board member of the Christian Appalachian Project Board. He also served for 15 years on the Paintsville City Council, 6 years on the Paintsville Independent School Board, and on a number of committees for Big Sandy Community & Technical College.

Mr. Dorton is also an active member of the First United Methodist Church in Paintsville, and has volunteered on missions to Belize and Costa Rica to help build church and school buildings. He has taught personal financial management courses at his church, and even taught at local elementary schools on subjects as varied as woodworking, banjos, and folk art.

Dennis and his wife, Jean, have a son, Andrew Trigg Dorton, who is married to Stephanie Stumbo. Dennis and Jean are the grandparents of Tristan Andrew and Ashton Warren. I am sure Dennis's family is very proud of him and all that he has accomplished.

At this time I ask my U.S. Senate colleagues to join me in commemorating Mr. Dennis T. Dorton for his decades of work and service to his loved ones, his employer, his community, and the Commonwealth. He has set a remarkable example to follow for those who know him. I congratulate him on his successes and wish him well upon his retirement.

Madam President, earlier this week President Obama reiterated his desire to raise taxes on small businesses earning over $250,000 a year. I and all of my Republican colleagues oppose this tax hike for the same reason the President himself opposed it 2 years ago-- because raising taxes would only make a bad economy worse.

But here it comes again--sort of like a bad penny--the liberal crusade for more government, regardless of the circumstances, the impact it would have on working Americans or the broader economy.

On Monday the President issued the following reckless ultimatum: Let me raise taxes on about 1 million business owners, and I promise I won't raise taxes on everybody else.

In the face of 41 straight months of unemployment above 8 percent, the President is begging Congress to let him raise taxes on the very businesses the American people are counting on to create jobs.

It is the exact opposite, of course, of what is needed. For some reason, he thinks a tax hike is his ticket to reelection. He says it is fair.

Well, I don't think most Americans think it is particularly fair for a government that doesn't do a thing to live within its means to take more money away from those who have worked and sacrificed to earn it, only to waste it on some solar company or on one more government program we can't afford.

We have seen this movie too many times in the past. Frankly, we don't have the luxury to waste any more time arguing about a question that is already settled for most people. The problem here isn't that the government taxes too little but that it spends too much.

What the American people need right now isn't a lecture on fairness; they would like to have some certainty. That is why today I am going to call on the Senate to provide just that. I have already called for a 1- year extension of all the current income tax rates.

Today I will go further by asking consent that we set up two votes in the Senate: one on the President's proposal to raise taxes on nearly 1 million business owners in the middle of the worst economic recovery in modern times, and another that would extend current income tax rates for 1 year and task the Finance Committee to produce a bill that would enact fundamental, progrowth tax reform.

It has been over a quarter century since we last did comprehensive tax reform. We all agree, on a bipartisan basis, that we need to do it again.

The Senate should make itself clear which policy it supports, and this is our chance to do it.

On Monday, the President said if the Senate passes this tax hike on small businesses, he would sign it right away. That is what he said 2 days ago, on Monday. I can't see why our friends on the other side would not want to give him the chance.

With that, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. today the motion to proceed to S. 2237 be adopted, and that the first two amendments in order to the bill be the Hatch-McConnell amendment No. 2491, which would provide for the extension of current rates while we work on tax reform, and a Reid or designee amendment to enact the President's proposal, which, as I have said, would impose job-killing tax hikes on nearly 1 million businessowners.

Let me simplify this for everybody. On Monday the President asked that we have the vote I have just offered to the majority. We have a clear contrast here. We have 41 straight months of unemployment over 8 percent. If this is a recovery, it is the most tepid recovery in modern times. The President's solution to that is to raise taxes on about 1 million small business owners, representing about 53 percent of small business income and up to 25 percent of the workforce.

We are on a different bill that my friend the majority leader is talking about, that I understand would be slipped by the House in any event. Clearly, what we are doing this week is having a political discussion, not seriously legislating. So my recommendation is that we give the President what he asked for. He wants to have a vote on raising taxes on individuals making over $250,000 a year, which, of course, includes almost 1 million small businesses that pay taxes as individuals, not as corporations--they are either S corps or LLCs--the most successful small businesses in America, in fact. That is a vote we welcome. It is a vote the President is asking for, and it is a vote I just asked for.

Senator Hatch, our leader on the Finance Committee, here on the floor right behind me today, has advocated that we extend the current tax rates for 1 year--the same thing the President, I would say to my friend from Utah, wanted to do 2 years ago, at that time arguing it would be bad for the economy not to do that. And the growth then was actually better than it is now. We think we ought to vote on that. It would give Senator Hatch and Senator Baucus and the people on the Finance Committee a year to work us through comprehensive tax reform. Again, it has been a quarter of a century since we have done that.

Why not have those votes today? That is what my consent agreement is about. I am a little surprised we are not willing to give the President what he asked for, which is a vote on a clear distinction for the American people so they can understand how the two sides look at this important issue. It could not be more clear.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I think we have witnessed here a new definition of a filibuster. My good friend the majority leader, I gather, is accusing me of filibustering when I am trying to get a vote--not one but two votes--on what he says he is for, what the President says he is for, and a vote on what Republicans are for. So we have here a brandnew definition of a filibuster. Even when you are trying to get votes and they are objected to by the other side, somehow that is a filibuster.

Now, my good friend talks about what would help small businesses. I think we ought to ask them would they prefer the underlying bill, which the majority leader has called up and we have voted to proceed to, or would they prefer not to have their taxes go up at the end of the year? Talk about a no-brainer. I don't think there is any question what small businesses would rather have.

But we are certainly not filibustering. We enjoy discussing our differences of opinion on the tax issue. There couldn't be anything more important to the American people if we are going to get this economy going again. And certainly trying to set up two votes--No. 1 on what the President is asking for and No. 2 on what Republicans think is a better alternative--could not, in my view, be the definition of a filibuster.

So Senator Hatch is here--and obviously the majority leader can speak again if he wishes--and he is going to address the matter as well, but I wish to thank him again for his conspicuous leadership on the Finance Committee. We are looking to him to work us through this comprehensive tax reform matter again next year. It is going to be extremely important for the country, and I thank him for his good work.