Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank Senator Sessions for his leadership.

I come here today as a new member of the Budget Committee, fresh from the committee process with some observations and some disappointments, but principally today I come to the floor to talk about the urgent need for budget reform and a lasting budget that will put us on a path to fiscal responsibility.

I suppose we should be delighted at least to be on the floor with a budget. After 4 years of trillion-dollar deficits and after 4 years without a budget, at least we have an opportunity as representatives of the American people to debate the financial future of this country and an opportunity to discuss putting our Nation on a trajectory away from constant debt and uncertainty and on a path toward security and prosperity, on a path that is designed to create better job opportunities for the people we represent.

Unfortunately, the budget our friends on the other side of the aisle unveiled last week ignores the spending problem that continues to drive the Federal debt skyward. Don't take the word of one Senator from Mississippi on that. Let's listen to the words of the Washington Post editorial board. Not exactly what one would call a center-right entity, they observed on March 14--and I quote the Washington Post:

This document gives voters no reason to believe that

Democrats have a viable plan for--or even a responsible

public assessment of--the country's long-term fiscal

predicament.

Those are the words of the Washington Post in utter disappointment about the product we will be debating on the floor for the next several days.

Being a member of the Budget Committee and being part of the budget markup process has certainly been revealing to me as a new member of the committee. We were given an opportunity before amendments were offered to ask technical questions--not really to debate but just to ask technical questions of the staff members about exactly what this budget does. We learned from these professionals--when we just asked them the questions, we learned these facts about the Democratic proposal for a budget for the next 10 years: It does not balance at any point during the next decade. Never in the next 10 years would this document bring the Federal budget into balance. Not only that, in propounding further technical questions to the staff, we learned that this budget puts our country on a spending path that never comes into balance. There is no plan for decades and decades to come, as far as the eye can see, for this budget ever to get the Federal Government into balance. Yet it was supported by friends of mine on the other side of the aisle who have certainly given lipservice to the idea not only of a balanced budget but of a balanced budget constitutional amendment.

I am going to predict that Democratic Members of this body who come in here and vote for this document will have coauthored a balanced budget constitutional amendment, who have actually voted for or cosponsored a balanced budget constitutional amendment. Yet they will be voting for a document that not only doesn't balance within 10 years but that never, ever comes into balance. Indeed, the document that we will be asked to support and that we are trying to amend grows the Federal Government at 5 percent each year for the entire decade. It raises taxes to the tune of $1.5 trillion over the decade. And this is important for us to realize: It doesn't raise taxes on that rich guy behind the tree who we think can afford it, it raises taxes on the middle class. There is no question about it. We can't get $1.5 trillion out of the American economy without raising taxes on the middle class, and that is exactly what this budget does. So it never comes into balance, but it does raise a ton of taxes right out of the middle-class economy of this country.

Now, we will have an amendment process, and there will be a number of amendments, but it will, in essence, give us an opportunity to slow the trajectory of growth of Federal spending.

Members of the Senate will be offered an amendment in this process to balance our Federal budget by the year 2023. We will be given an opportunity to debate that and to visit on a plan that would get us there. How does it get us there? By slashing and burning? By tough austerity in the budget? Absolutely not. I think it would surprise many people within the sound of my voice in this city and elsewhere to know that we can grow the size of Federal spending by 3.4 percent each year over the next 10 years and still balance the Federal budget by the year 2023. Let me repeat that. Federal spending is not going to be actually cut under the Republican proposal we will present as an alternative. Federal spending will go up each year by an average of 3.4 percent per year, and still we will be able to balance the budget by the year 2023. So we need not let anyone say that we are having to slash and burn in order to balance the budget.

There will be adequate funds to perform the functions of government and still we will be able to balance the budget.

I say what so many of my colleagues have said and what our distinguished ranking member from Alabama has said repeatedly: We are not in this business simply to say we balanced the budget. It is not some artificial goal like winning a game. We are in this process of trying to save our country from a mountain of debt in order to create jobs for the American people, in order to grow the economy, rather than growing the size of the Federal Government. We have an opportunity to avoid the fate that is occurring to our allies in Western Europe, even as we speak.

I have heard it said recently that: Well, we don't have a debt crisis yet. There are some people who would dispute that. But there are people in this Federal Government, the President included, who say: We don't have a debt crisis at this moment in the Federal Government. I ask this in response: Must we wait for an absolute crisis before we act? We see it coming. We see what has happened to our friends who have overspent in Greece, in Spain, in Portugal, what is happening to our allies, our NATO allies in France. We can avoid this fate. Must we wait until the absolute last moment when people are losing their jobs and we are unable to perform the necessary functions of government?

So I say this: We need to act now. We need to act to avoid that crisis which is not that far down the road, and we want to act to grow the economy and create jobs.

I wish to mention three issues briefly, and then I notice there are other people who want to speak on this important issue. There is hardly a more important issue that we could be talking about, and thank goodness, for the first time in 4 years, we are going to get that opportunity. Let me mention Social Security, let me mention Medicaid, and then Medicare.

Social Security is a wonderful program. My dad relies on Social Security. We are going to keep the commitment that we have made to our senior citizens in the form of Social Security. But everyone agrees the numbers simply do not add up long term. They agree with that much, as President Ronald Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neill agreed to the very same notion back in 1982 and 1983. The numbers were not adding up long term for Social Security and something had to be done and some painful decisions had to be made in the early 1980s. To this day, we thank God for President Ronald Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neill for having the bipartisan courage to do the tough things, to make the tough decisions, and adjust an important program so that Social Security has been saved for the past three decades.

We need that kind of statesmanship out of the White House today. Frankly, we need that kind of leadership out of the White House. We are calling for bipartisan action. I think it is worth noting--and it pains me to say this--for

the first time in 92 years, we are considering a budget without seeing a plan from the President of the United States, and he announced just last week that he was going to wait in sending us his budget plan. It will be 2 months late by the time it arrives, according to the President's own timetable. In fact, this is the fourth time in 5 years that our President, that my President, has missed this deadline. But we need the same leadership out of this White House that we had out of the Reagan White House three decades ago. We can save Social Security, but it will have to be a little different.

We can save Medicaid and make it better. We are going to have an opportunity, as legislators, as policymakers, to give the States an opportunity to design their own Medicaid Program to serve their individual States better.

Let's give one State or let's give five volunteer States the opportunity to take a Medicaid block grant and see if they cannot provide better health care to their underserved population with a Medicaid block grant. Let's give them an opportunity to do that. The program does not work very well now.

Then the statement was made--and correctly--by some of my Democratic colleagues in the Budget Committee that Medicare is a promise we have made and we ought to keep that promise. I could not agree more. There is not a soul in this Senate who does not want to keep the promise we have made to American workers and to American retired people with regard to Medicare.

But the fact remains--and every Senator in this body understands this--Medicare, as it is currently written, cannot last for many more years. The numbers simply do not add up. I am glad the point is being made, and it is being picked up by the mainstream media now. An American worker pays $1 into Medicare and gets $3 back in benefits. A system like that simply cannot be sustained long term. The numbers do not add up. The math does not. It is not that flexible.

So we need to--as Reagan and O'Neill did--as responsible custodians of our Federal Government, as responsible trustees of the future of this country, make changes to a program that has served us well.

Americans are calling for leadership and bipartisan action now. There are hopeful signs: the National Commission on Social Security Reform, the Gang of 6, the Simpson-Bowles Commission, various bipartisan groups that are trying to forge an honest long-term deal to deal not only with our debt but these three important entitlement programs.

I do not see that sort of realism in the document the Democratic majority has provided to us through the Budget Committee. I hope we can amend it. Perhaps we will not in the next few days, but we are going to have to in order to be the trustees of the future, to be the responsible leaders that our voters demand and that the people who come after us would hope we could be.

I look forward to the process. I look forward, cheerfully and realistically, to making the case for our position that we could grow the government by just a little less and balance the budget within 10 years, and in so doing we can make a better life, a better future, a better ability for our people to earn a living and support their families.

Thank you very much. I look forward to the debate. At this point I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I too rise in opposition to the nomination of Chuck Hagel to lead the Department of Defense. Mr. Hagel is probably going to get his vote, but let me say this to my friend from Delaware. If a Republican President in the future brings a nomination for Defense Secretary to this Senate and he does not get as many as 60 votes, I will ask that Republican President to withdraw that nomination, and I wish this President would do the same. This could have been an easy matter. The selection of the Defense Secretary for President Obama's second term could have been a unifying moment. There were a host of qualified, able candidates, both Republican and Democrat, who could have sailed through the process. The President knew controversy was ahead and decided to name Senator Hagel anyway.

There were signals from the right and from the left that Senator Hagel would be a divisive and distracting choice. The Washington Post editorial board gave the President good advice on December 18 by saying: ``Chuck Hagel is not the right choice for defense secretary.''

The differences surrounding Senator Hagel's nomination during the last few weeks stand in stark contrast to the unanimous support for outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Mr. Hagel's nomination is markedly different from the overwhelming confirmation of Senator John Kerry for Secretary of State.

With so much at stake in the coming days, this should be a time for consensus and cooperation. A nominee who could draw unequivocal support would have served our defense priorities better--and those of our allies.

This confirmation fight occurs against the backdrop of severe across- the-board cuts to America's defense programs that are set to take effect this week unless current policy is changed. The Joint Chiefs of Staff reiterated this disastrous reality at a hearing on February 12. The generals and admirals who testified are some of the most respected in the Pentagon. They are some of the most respected in the world. They made it clear that these cuts, at nearly one-half trillion dollars, threaten America's military readiness and national security. Based on their expertise, we are obliged to believe them.

By contrast, Senator Hagel has called the defense budget ``bloated.'' He did not simply say there is some fat we can trim or that there is room for savings, as we all believe. No, he said it was bloated.

Which is it? Are the Joint Chiefs of Staff correct or is Chuck Hagel correct? The testimony from Defense officials is clearly at odds with Mr. Hagel's shortsighted assessment.

Would Senator Hagel defend a robust defense budget in the face of indiscriminate cuts that could weaken our national security or does he believe sequestration is the answer to what he calls a bloated defense budget?

The statement that our national security budget is bloated is only one of many outlandish pronouncements Senator Hagel has used to grab attention rather than give an accurate evaluation of the situation at hand.

Senator Hagel has in fact made a career out of speaking against the bipartisan mainstream and taking positions on the fringe of public opinion. Here are a few other examples: Senator Hagel has accused Israel of ``playing games'' and committing ``sickening slaughter'' when it was defending itself from Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. He has said that Israel should not keep

the Palestinians ``caged up like animals.''

We never had a Defense Secretary who would have said such a thing. Senator Hagel has said the ``Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here'' and forces Congress to do ``dumb things.''

On Iran, Senator Hagel has stated he is both for and against unilateral sanctions. He wrote to Senator Boxer's office on January 14:

I agree that, with Iran's continued rejection of diplomatic

overtures, further effective sanctions, both multilateral and

unilateral--may be necessary.

A week earlier, Senator Hagel told the Lincoln Journal Star that he opposed unilateral sanctions because they ``don't work and they just isolate the United States.''

When speaking about the Iraq war, Senator Hagel has described it as a ``meat grinder,'' a crude characterization that succeeded, once again, in gaining him some additional headlines.

Perhaps, in an effort to minimize his inconsistent record, Senator Hagel said during the Armed Services hearing on January 31 that he ``won't be in a policy-making position'' as Defense Secretary. This comment illustrates either naivety or a disturbing abdication of the Defense Secretary's responsibilities, which include well-informed policy decisions that will affect the lives of men and women in uniform. Of course the Secretary of Defense makes policy.

During the Armed Services hearing, Senator McCain was correct to try to ascertain what Senator Hagel's feelings are today about the surge in Iraq. A number of people agreed with Senator Hagel at the time but are now willing to admit with hindsight that the surge went better than expected, but not Senator Hagel.

Let's not forget that Senator Hagel did not merely oppose the surge. It was not enough to say he had misgivings or doubts. He called it the greatest foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam war. This has been the extreme, outlandish, rhetorical approach of Chuck Hagel throughout his career.

People involved in a position of this importance need to be careful about what they say. When one is being interviewed for a book, they should choose words wisely. That is why, during the Armed Services hearing, I asked Senator Hagel about why he told author Aaron David Miller ``the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here'' and that he ``always argued against some of the dumb things they do.''

Let me make this clear. Americans who come to Washington and advocate for Israel do meaningful work to advance a strong, sovereign, and democratic Israel, America's closest ally in the Middle East. Mr. Hagel did not defend his comments at the hearing. Instead, he blamed his statements on a poor choice of words.

Congressional actions, such as tough Iran sanctions and greater military cooperation with Israel, are not the products of intimidation. To suggest otherwise challenges the bipartisan judgment of the men and women elected to serve in this Chamber.

When questioned by Senator Graham during the hearing, Senator Hagel could not name one person in Congress who had been intimidated or one dumb thing that Congress had done because of the pro-Israel lobby. One or two troubling statements might not be disqualifying when taken alone, but all of the positions taken together paint what I believe is an accurate picture of this nominee. Our troops and allies need to rely on the words of the Secretary of Defense. Changing viewpoints for the purpose of political expediency or to make headlines is not the hallmark of a steadfast leader.

Weeks after the process began, two conclusions emerged from the totality of the information that has come to light about Senator Hagel: Either we should disregard everything he has said and stood for as merely hyperbole---- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

May I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute?

I thank the gentleman.

Let's say everything the Senator has said is merely hyperbole or this is a nominee with a very unsettling and naive world view. You can't have it both ways. Either he means what he said over his career or it has all been theater.

The President is entitled to make his nomination, but the Senate must uphold its important constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on this nomination.

Early on, many friends on the Democratic side of the aisle voiced their very real concerns. Let me ask, Has Chuck Hagel truly answered those concerns? Which Chuck Hagel are we being asked to confirm: the one who shoots from the hip and means what he says or the one who is now willing to say anything to be confirmed?

We need a Secretary of Defense who can stand before the world and articulate that America is opposed to a nuclear Iran and rejects a policy of containment. We need a Secretary of Defense who can stand before the world and be clear that the Iranian Government is not a legitimately constituted government. We need a Secretary of Defense who has broad, bipartisan support. Sadly, that Secretary is not Chuck Hagel.

Mr. President, I rise tonight to pay tribute to Jamie Ellis, a beloved member of my staff who passed away on Tuesday, November 27, at the age of 65.

Jamie Ellis served his State and country proudly as a constituent liaison in my office in Tupelo. He handled veterans issues, a role he filled with compassion, ability, and integrity. It was a natural fit. Jamie brought to the position his own background of military service and experience as a volunteer Veterans Service Officer for the local chapter of the Vietnam Veterans of America. He had a deep understanding of the unique circumstances our veterans face, and he worked tirelessly to make their lives better. His help and kindness will not be forgotten.

This ability to work well with others was evident throughout Jamie's career, from his years in public service to his success in business. He knew how to lead--a talent that served him well as president of Ellis Brothers Timber and Wonder Wood Products in Mississippi. Before joining my office, he was a valued independent sales agent for Lawson Products in Illinois.

Jamie deserved the respect that veterans and others bestowed upon him. He served in the U.S. Air Force from 1966 to 1970, spending nearly 3 years in southeast Asia, including 1 year in Vietnam. He then served in the National Guard. In his home community of Saltillo, Jamie was a 32nd-degree Mason and Shriner and member of the Saltillo First United Methodist Church.

Helen Keller once said:

The world is moved along not only by the mighty shoves of

its heroes, but also by the aggregate of the tiny pushes of

each honest worker.

Jamie was the true and honest worker Ms. Keller describes, and he was a hero to those he helped. There is no doubt his contributions have made the world a better place than he found it.

I am thankful to have known Jamie Ellis and to have had him on my staff. My wife Gayle and I extend our deepest sympathy to his loved ones. To many, Jamie was a fellow veteran and a good friend. To his family, he was a devoted son, husband, father, brother, and grandfather.

Our thoughts and prayers are with his family, especially his wife Judy of 42 years, and their three children and nine grandchildren. He will be truly missed.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Tennessee would yield to me on this very point.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for making this point. I have an amendment to this bill that I would like to have had heard. It strikes a middle ground between the unlimited per account liability and the $250,000 we have traditionally had. It is a modest compromise as well as an alternative, and it will not be considered because of the very practice my friend from Tennessee has mentioned.

It is not only our amendments--I just came in on the tail end of the Senator's remarks--but there are Democratic amendments which deserve to be heard on this bill. Senator Udall has an amendment--he is a member of the majority party--and it is a well-reasoned amendment that deserves to be considered and heard. The distinguished majority leader has chosen to fill the amendment tree and offer only his select amendments, and now I am deprived from the ability that I think a representative of several States should have; that is, to bring forth an idea and have it heard. I might not be able to get a majority on it and Senator Udall may not prevail, but we deserve to be heard.

This has been the greatest deliberative body in the world--at least that is what I heard before I came over from the House of Representatives--but it has not turned out that way. The majority leader time and time again fills the amendment trees, thereby preventing any of the other 99 Senators from offering amendments.

The Congressional Research Service has identified 40 instances in which opportunities for debating and offering amendments had already been limited by the Senate majority leader by filling or partially filling the amendment tree.

I have one more point and then I will yield back to my friend from Tennessee. We are going to miss the services and the independence of the distinguished senior Senator from Maine, Ms. Olympia Snowe. I think anyone in this body would have to admit Senator Snowe has been evenhanded, bipartisan, and often nonpartisan. She has objected to this very practice by this very majority leader, and I think it is destructive to the overall process of the Senate.

In the specific words of retiring Senator Olympia Snowe: First and foremost, the Senate should have the ability to debate more than the three amendments the majority leader is allowing. It is therefore imperative that Senate deliberations on the Defense bill be conducted without limitations and in a manner that allows for the consideration of all related amendments that Senators may wish to offer.

I have been aggrieved that my little amendment is not going to get anymore debate than these few moments right now. I know the Senator from Tennessee feels the same way, and undoubtedly Senator Udall would prefer a vote and debate on his amendment. We can fix the Senate. We can get back to the leadership we had under Mansfield and Mitchell of Maine and Lott of Mississippi and other majority leaders. We can move legislation along but not if we continue this abuse of the process by filling the amendment tree.

I will be voting with the distinguished Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Pennsylvania on the point of order because we need to draw a bright red line there. Perhaps we can get on this issue at some other point. I hope the Senate can get back to an orderly debate on matters of substance.

I thank my friend, the Senator from Tennessee, for yielding on that point.

I yield back.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 6 minutes.

Mr. President, in a few moments the distinguished chair of the Finance Committee and the Senator from Utah will commence debate on H.R. 6156, the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012. Because of scheduling concerns, I am speaking on this in morning business, and that will allow time for other Members to speak.

I come to the floor today to support this bill. It has a very important twofold purpose: It approves normal trade relations with Russia, and at the same time the legislation insists that the Russian Government adhere to the rule of law. It does so by putting consequences in place for those in Russia who abuse basic human rights.

Granting PNTR to Russia is a big win for Americans. If Congress does not act, American workers, including millions employed by small businesses, stand to lose out to foreign competitors as Russia opens its market as a new member of the WTO.

Many in my home State of Mississippi and around the country deserve to benefit from increased trade that this new relationship would bring. More jobs and greater economic growth are our potential rewards here in the United States. Last year Mississippi's $55 million in exports to Russia helped support an estimated 170 jobs. Certainly this number needs to grow, and I believe it will under this legislation.

Yet in realizing the immense trade potential at hand, we cannot ignore the urgent need to address serious concerns about Russia's appalling human rights record. Most agree that the Jackson-Vanik amendment currently in place is an outdated restriction on trade which could hurt American competitiveness. But repeal alone will not suffice when dealing with a country that continues to protect corrupt officials, and that is what the Russian Government continues to do.

The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act is a necessary replacement for Jackson-Vanik. The legislation targets human rights violators by imposing restrictions on their financial activities and travel. It recognizes that the privilege of using America's banking system and acquiring a U.S. visa should be denied to those who disgrace human dignity and justice.

Facts need to be retold today about the case of Sergei Magnitsky after whom this legislation is named. Sergei Magnitsky was a lawyer and partner with an American-owned law firm based in Moscow. He was married and had two children. In his investigative work on behalf of the Hermitage Fund, the largest foreign portfolio investor in Russia, Mr. Magnitsky uncovered the largest tax rebate fraud in Russian history. He found that Russian Interior Ministry officers, tax officials, and organized criminals had worked together to steal $230 million in public funds.

In 2008 Mr. Magnitsky voluntarily gave sworn testimony against officials from the Interior Ministry, Russian tax departments, and the private criminals whom he discovered were complicit in the fraud. A month later, instead of being commended for doing the right

thing, Mr. Magnitsky was arrested in front of his wife and children and placed in pretrial detention. He was held without a trial for 1 year. The Russian Federal Security Service deemed Mr. Magnitsky was a flight risk to prolong his detention, based on false claims that he had a U.K. visa application.

While in custody, Mr. Magnitsky was tortured by officials, hoping he would withdraw his testimony, and falsely incriminate himself and his client. Refusing to do so, his conditions and his health worsened. He stayed in an overcrowded cell with no heat, no sunlight, and no toilet. The lights were kept on throughout the night to deprive him of sleep. Mr. Magnitsky lost 40 pounds and suffered from severe pancreatitis and gallstones.

Months went by without any access to medical care. Despite hundreds of petitions, requests for medical examination and surgery were denied by Russian Government officials. So were family visits. After his arrest Mr. Magnitsky saw his wife once and never again saw his children.

On November 13, 2009, Sergei Magnitsky's condition deteriorated dramatically. Doctors saw him on November 16. He was transferred to a Moscow detention center that had medical facilities and, instead of being treated there immediately, he was placed in an isolation cell, handcuffed, beaten, and subsequently Sergei Magnitsky died.

After his death, Russian officials repeatedly denied the facts surrounding his health condition. Requests by his family for an independent autopsy were rejected. Detention center officials said Mr. Magnitsky's abdominal membrane had ruptured and that he died from toxic shock. The official cause of death would blame heart failure.

According to the Russian State Investigative Committee, Mr. Magnitsky was not pressured and tortured but died naturally of heart disease. The committee said his death was ``nobody's fault.''

For 3 years not a single person has been prosecuted for Mr. Magnitsky's false arrest, torture, murder, or for the massive fraud that he had the courage to expose. Like many of my colleagues, I continue to have real concerns about the current state of human rights and rule of law in Russia. I have come to the floor on numerous occasions demanding accountability for Russia's rampant extrajudicial offenses.

Tragically, Mr. Magnitsky is not the only victim of the country's criminal regime. The cases of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Planton Lebedev, who remain in prison, are also poignant examples of the corruption that pervades the Russian Government. My friend, the junior Senator from Maryland, has shown tremendous leadership on this issue and I commend him for his steadfast dedication to the highest standard of democracy and justice. I have long supported Senator Cardin's efforts to use the Magnitsky Act as a way to protect human rights globally.

The Magnitsky Act is a simple straightforward call for justice. It signals to the world that America will uphold its commitment to the protection of human rights and the rule of law. It is a tool that could be extremely powerful in penalizing human rights violators everywhere. Many of us had hoped to achieve a bicameral consensus in applying the Magnitsky Act globally. Although global language is not included in the House bill being considered today, sanctions against human rights violations in Russia and within the Russian Government are still an important victory. It moves us in the right direction.

I hope we can work in the next Congress to consider broadening the reach of the Magnitsky Act. Russia is not alone in its human rights abuses and the United States' unwavering stance against corruption should not stop there.

PNTR with Russia is an important vehicle for American trade and it should serve as a reminder of our country's role in promoting the advancement of human rights. At the same time, I remain committed to supporting this role as we move forward.

Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to Kyle Parker, a staff member on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe--also known as the Helsinki Commission, which Senator Cardin co-chairs--during Senate consideration of H.R. 6156.

Madam President, I wonder if I might be able to proceed for 1 minute before we begin the votes.

Madam President, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to breeze in here at the last moment.

I would like to speak today about a Department of Defense policy that has an impact on American jobs and is in urgent need of greater transparency. Until recently, this policy picked industry winners and losers. We must ensure that the Federal Government's adopted standards for green buildings are consensus-based, fair, and established by sound science.

Before last year's Defense authorization bill was signed into law, the Department of Defense exclusively recognized or showed preference for a single green building rating system.

The U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design--or LEED--became DOD's adopted benchmark for green building.

This raised concerns, primarily because LEED standards are not developed in a transparent manner and do not allow meaningful input from all affected stakeholders.

For example, for some reason LEED standards are unreasonably biased against American timber.

Obtaining the highest LEED certifications often requires green buildings to exclude domestic wood. Instead, the use of bamboo, often shipped from overseas, is favored over more cost-efficient local timber.

The next version of LEED threatens to eliminate the use of other approved materials and proven products that are currently used to achieve true energy savings.

It makes sense to anticipate that a blanket adoption of LEED by the Department of Defense would have a significant impact on American industry.

To put the scope of DOD's green building policies into perspective: DOD has more than 500,000 facilities, covering more than 2 billion square feet. If we combined all of the nearly 5,000 Wal-Mart buildings in America, it would make up about a third of DOD's real estate.

That is why I fought for language--included in the 2012 Defense authorization conference report--requiring DOD to conduct a cost- benefit analysis of various green building rating systems.

Last year's Defense authorization conference report prohibited the use of funds to implement LEED standards.

This year, the Armed Services Committee accepted language I offered to extend the prohibition of funds for LEED until 6 months after the cost-benefit study is reported to Congress.

I look forward to the findings of this study but remain concerned about DOD's adoption of any green building standards that are not transparent and consensus-based.

I have yet another amendment that would direct DOD to utilize green building standards that are driven by consensus as determined by the American Nationa Standards nstitute, and include sufficient input from all affected stakeholders.

My amendment also would support green building standards that consider the full environmental benefits provided by a building material throughout its lifetime. Life Cycle Assessment is a science- based approach used to measure these benefits.

Together, I believe these provisions would create a level playing field for materials to compete for green building and energy savings in DOD construction.

The Federal Government should be in the business of choosing winners and losers, Adoption of LEED only--or/any other green building standard not developed by consensus--would discriminate against American-made products, reduce transparency, impact jobs, and ultimately undermine energy savings and sustainability sought using taxpayer dollars.

Although I am going to withhold my amendment, I will continue to closely monitor this issue to ensure that fair competition is part of DOD's construction of green buildings.

I want to thank the chairman, ranking member, and all the members of the committee.

In conclusion, as we have learned, there is more than one way to have green building standards. The Defense Department has tilted toward the LEED standards in the past. I think we have authorized now a scientific analysis of other methods that is proceeding apace. I had planned to offer yet another amendment which would be withdrawn directing that the Department of Defense utilize green building standards that are driven by consensus as determined by the American National Standards Institute. As I say, I am withholding that amendment.

I do appreciate the language that is in the bill now, and I think we will end up with green building standards that save energy and serve the purposes of national defense and do not tilt toward one industry over the other.

I thank the Presiding Officer for her indulgence, I thank my colleagues on the committee, and I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 3262, as Modified

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my friend from Alabama and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Budget

Mr. President, let me say from the outset that this Senate and this Nation are profoundly fortunate to have had the services of Senator Orrin Hatch for decades and decades. The speech he just delivered to this body was profound in so many ways and true in so many ways. It was made at 10 minutes til 6 on a Friday night when perhaps Americans are looking elsewhere, but just so much of what the Senator said is absolutely the truth, and our country needs to hear it. I appreciate him coming and delivering it in such a talented way.

Well, it would be. I think that with the leadership of people such as Senator Hatch, we would not be ignoring what we have out there facing us in America today, and that is nothing less than a financial crisis. The Senator from Utah is correct. The President of the United States is doing everything he can to change the subject from the central issue of our faltering economy. Yet the mainstream media is out there playing trivial pursuit, talking about everything that is not important, and that is a distraction. But you just can't get around the facts. The facts are these: We have a $16 trillion staggering debt in this country. This government has added $6 trillion in 3\1/2\ short years. Just the facts. You can't get around it.

You also can't get around these absolute truths: We have had no appropriations bills come out of this Senate this year. Our Republican friends in the House--it is a different story. They have done their work, and they passed product after product, as they are supposed to do. And my hat is off to the chair, the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, for getting the appropriations bills done. We have not done that in this Democrat-led Senate. We have not passed a defense bill--first time in half a century that we will

have gone through a whole session and not passed a defense bill, at a time when we have troops at war, troops in harm's way. Our men and women are putting themselves at risk and fighting and dying. We do not have a defense bill.

No question about it. It does not make me comfortable to point fingers, but there is no getting around the fact that there is one person on this planet who can call up a bill before this Senate; that is, the majority leader of the Senate. He has not brought up the defense bill.

We also do not have a budget resolution. Again, our friends in the House, the Republicans in the House, under Speaker Boehner, have during the 2 years of their stewardship brought budget resolutions to the floor, passed them, sent them over here, only to be ignored.

The President has submitted budgets--did not get a single vote in the House of Representatives, did not get a single vote when we called it up as sort of a test vote here in the Senate. But this Senate, under the leadership of the Democratic majority, has not followed the statute that says you bring a budget resolution up every year--has not done it. We are into our fourth year now.

Beyond that, they do not have a budget deficit reduction plan. It is one thing to have a resolution that could say anything, but what the American people need, what our future generations are crying out for is a plan to reduce this debt.

I look forward to and hope to see the day when my friend from Alabama is chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. I would ask him to assure everyone within the sound of our voices today that under his leadership as chairman of the Budget Committee, we will see a budget resolution brought to the floor and debated according to statute.

Well, it is one of our basic responsibilities. As I said, the discretionary part of it is the appropriations bills. Not one single appropriations bill has cleared this Senate during 2012. And yes, indeed, at a time when we are running a debt of $6 trillion, when we are seeing our friends and allies across the ocean teetering on the brink, we are seeing all the warning signs.

We have time in this Capitol, in this Capital City, the shining city on the hill, to be an example to the world.

I can only answer the Senator's question by saying that the President's budget was so unpopular it did not get a single vote. There is not one single--even the most leftwing, left-leaning Senator would not step forward and embrace that budget. I can only assume that what they would have suggested would have been very much like that.

But when you are in the majority, you have a responsibility to lead. We all have a responsibility to lead, but in particular, when you are the only vehicle for bringing bills to the floor, you have a responsibility to lead in a time of crisis. That is what we have been lacking here in the Senate.

Of course, we do have the Federal Reserve, and the leader of the Federal Reserve announced the other day that he is going to print $40 billion extra each month. Now, that is his solution. I would counsel against that. I think most Members on this side would counsel against that. But at least it is a plan. We have had no indication from the leader of the Senate whether they like that plan.

We do know this. We passed a stimulus bill over here that cost almost $1 trillion. Unemployment has gone up under this bill that was supposed to jump-start the economy. It was supposed to do two things: jump-start the economy and keep the unemployment rate 8 percent or less. Of course, we know that for 42 months now, the unemployment rate has been over 8 percent. And the last thing the stimulus bill did was jump-start the economy. It has been going downhill ever since. It is hard to put a pretty face on this situation. Of course, the result is that a staggering 23 million American citizens either do not have a job, are underemployed, or have stopped looking for work.

In addition, of course, the President promised in 2008--the Senator remembers that promise--that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Well, this is the end of his first term. The deficit has mushroomed, not been cut in half. We are in a financial crisis, and everybody on television seems to be trying to paint a rosy picture and avoid the subject. So I am glad to join with my friend, the ranking member on the Budget Committee, to suggest that we will have a plan, as House Republicans had a specific plan, in black and white, to address this unbelievable financial crisis our country faces.

That is right.

I tell you what else it would do. It would tell the truth to the American people about what we are facing. I like what our young nominee for Vice President said. We have got time to fix this, but we need to fix it, and we don't have much time.

Speaking of telling the truth, I wish to pivot, if I could, to a question that has been raised on this floor in the last couple of days about this Senate's lack of compliance with the Budget Act. There is not a more learned expert on the federal Budget Act of 1974 than my friend from Alabama, and I would ask him to clarify, if he would, the statements and misstatements and charges and countercharges that have been made about the fact there has not been a budget resolution brought to this floor for consideration and amendment.

It is the one thing that can't be filibustered.

It is what every city council, every State legislature cannot avoid. They do not have a printing press down in Montgomery, AL, or Jackson, MS.

I know the Senator has seen the local delegations of county officials coming in and talking about economic development. They tell me: Senator, we have had to cut back on this, we have had to cut back on that, we have had to do this to our budget. We used to be able to afford these things and now we can't afford them anymore. They have had to make sensible decisions. Councils and legislatures, Republican and Democrat, have faced the hard choices, and it can't be any fun for them. They have to face the voters and say: we paid for this last year, we don't have the money this year. And families have had to do that as well.

But we can meet these challenges.

I have grown children--32, 28, and 25. They may be about to age into the next year, and they wonder if they will even receive Medicare when it comes time to retire. That retirement for them will come sooner than they think, though it seems like forever. But they do not believe--that generation doesn't believe--Medicare will be there for them. If we tackle this problem, Medicare can be there for the next generation. It should be there for the next generation.

It won't look exactly like it does for my father, who is 88 years old today and depends on Medicare, but Medicare could be there. But not the way it is going now. We have to tackle these issues.

No, sir.

Well, I appreciate the Senator's sharing his time with me.

Mr. President, I guess in a moment, Senator Sessions will yield the floor and we will go dark, subject to the call of the Chair for a vote at midnight, and then we will sort of slink out of town, with no appropriations bills, no defense bill, and no dealing with sequestration, which means meat axe cuts to defense and other programs.

But we will have gotten away under cover of darkness to face the voters, and in this country they are the ultimate arbiters.

I appreciate this opportunity to stand on the floor with a statesman such as my friend from Alabama and to thank him for his leadership on budget issues and to thank him for coming here and telling the truth to our colleagues and to the American people.

Day after day, hour after hour in quorum calls. It is very frustrating, and frustrating to the people who sent us here to do a job.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the gifted athletes from my home State of Mississippi who represented the United States in the 2012 London Olympic games and Paralympic games. They join an extraordinary legacy built by generations of great American Olympians and Paralympians, and their historic successes on the world stage are a proud moment for Mississippi.

In the London Olympic games, Gulfport native Brittney Reese became the first American woman to win a gold medal in long jump since Jackie Joyner-Kersee, who won it more than two decades ago in the Seoul games. The Olympic title tops an impressive career for the former University of Mississippi standout and four-time world champion, who has become an unmatched competitor over the past several years.

Particularly heartfelt and inspiring was Reese's dedication of her gold-medal success to the people of Mississippi and those still recovering from Hurricane Katrina, which damaged her family's home 7 years ago. As she told reporters, ``This is a great way for me to bring something home and show them we can all do this together.''

Bianca Knight of Ridgeland helped lead the women's 4x100-meter relay team to a gold-medal win in an incredible 40.82 seconds--besting the world record set by East Germany in 1985. The performance earned the United States its first Olympic gold medal in the women's relay event since 1996 in Atlanta.

In the men's 4x100-meter relay, Coldwater sprinter Trell Kimmons and his teammates blazed through to a silver-medal finish--setting a new American record. Former Jackson State University track star Michael Tinsley also won silver in the 400-meter hurdles. Isiah Young, a talented athlete at the University of Mississippi, made his Olympic debut in the exciting 200-meter dash, advancing to the semifinals with an impressive run against decorated Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt.

One Mississippian continued her Olympic success this time as a coach for the U.S. women's basketball team. Assistant coach Jennifer Gillom, an Ole Miss graduate from Abbeville, helped lead the team to a gold- medal victory in London. She won gold as a player during the Seoul Games and is the first person in Ole Miss women's basketball history to be part of multiple medal wins.

Like the Olympics, the London Paralympic games were also a spectacular display of athleticism and perseverance. The international sports event for athletes with disabilities began shortly after World War II as a way for those with war injuries to enhance their quality of life. More than 4,000 athletes competed in this year's Paralympic games--including four Mississippians who captivated the world with outstanding performances.

Shaquille Vance of Houston set a new American record in the men's 200-meter-T42 event--earning the silver medal. Richard Browne of Jackson sprinted to a silver-medal finish in the highly anticipated 100-meter-T44 race. Top-ranked competitors Ryan Estep and Joseph Brinson of Florence showcased their expertise as part of the U.S. wheelchair fencing team, with Estep competing in the epee-style event and Brinson in the saber-style competition.

I thank the family and friends who have supported and encouraged these athletes throughout this incredible journey. The Olympics and Paralympics are a dream for athletes around the world and a life- changing experience for those who participate. I congratulate these inspiring Mississippians on their remarkable accomplishments. They have worked hard and made us proud.

Mr. President, yesterday the New York Times said this: ``The 112th Congress is set to enter the Congressional record books as the least productive body in a generation.''

This is true, and the responsibility falls squarely at the feet of the Democratic Senate leadership. The Senate has taken just 193 recorded votes this year. The Senate has been more than 3 years since passing a budget. The majority leader has shut off the right to amend a record number of times. The majority leader has filled the amendment tree a record 66 times--more than his 6 predecessors in the Senate who did it a total of 40 times. The majority leader has shut off the right to debate. He calls up a bill, he files cloture on it, and then he has the audacity to call that a filibuster.

In short, the Democrats have failed to pass a budget, have failed to do a single appropriations bill, and have failed to consider a Defense authorization bill when we have troops in harm's way. America needs new leadership.

I appreciate what my friend said about the drought. Much of my State at the last minute escaped it, but I happened to be in the State of Missouri in the past few days and saw the terrible drought conditions there.

I cannot think of a worse time, with our farm community being devastated by this drought, to talk about a huge tax increase on our agriculture community, particularly in the form of the estate tax. I just learned a remarkable thing. I would ask my colleagues if this is the state of the bill we will now be voting on at 4 this afternoon.

The result of this legislation would be to take the estate tax back up to 55 percent on all of the value of an estate over $1 million. This would be a devastating tax increase. I honestly do not believe the American people understand that this is the effect of the legislation our friends on the majority side have brought forward. But if this bill is passed the way it is currently configured, that would be the result. We would go back to the old law, 55-percent tax on all, the value of these southern and midwestern farms, of any small business across the country, would go up to 55 percent over values of $1 million. It is an unthinkable result. I frankly would not be surprised if the phones across the street in our offices are ringing off the wall at this result.

I ask my friend from South Dakota if I have misunderstood the effect of this legislation.

If the Senator will yield for a moment, this has also the same effect on mom-and-pops, family businesses that may have been in a family for generations. We are going to impose a 55-percent confiscatory tax on them.

I am just speechless that this bill has now gotten to the point where it brings us back to the earlier punitive estate tax rates.

If I may, I will make one point. I know my friend from Kansas also wants to join in.

This could only hurt job creation among small businesspeople and small farmers. I can't imagine why they want to do this. We have had 42 months of unemployment at over 8 percent, the longest period in peacetime and modern history. To put this tax on farms that create jobs and small businesses that create jobs, which is where most of our new jobs come from, is just unthinkable. I cannot imagine that it would do anything, if it were signed into law as the President wants to do, other than make that 8.2 percent unemployment rate go even higher.

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

Madam President, I come to the floor today to call Members' attention to recent action taken at the Parliamentary Assembly meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which convened in Monaco earlier this month.

The OSCE considered and passed with overwhelming support a resolution on the rule of law in Russia and the case of Sergei Magnitsky. This is a resounding and much welcomed rebuke of Russia's deplorable human rights record and systemic corruption.

With the Magnitsky resolution, the OSCE--made up of 56 participating states spanning Europe, Central Asia, and North America--reaffirms the widespread call for justice and rule of law. The international group has sent a clear signal to human rights violators that they will be held accountable.

The OSCE resolution supports government efforts to ban visas, freeze assets, and employ other financial sanctions against those connected to the illegal detention and tragic death of Sergei Magnitsky. The young lawyer was beaten and denied medical care in a Russian prison after uncovering a vast conspiracy by Russian officials involving $230 million in tax fraud. Sergei Magnitsky died as a result of his treatment, and no one has ever been held responsible for his death.

I have been a member of the Helsinki Commission for the last several years, and I have seen firsthand the contributions the OSCE has made to advance democratic, economic, security, and human rights issues. I was unable to attend the Parliamentary Assembly meeting, but I am grateful our colleague Senator John McCain was able to be there to highlight the importance of this particular issue.

The Magnitsky case is just one example of the gross human rights abuses and official impunity in Russia. But as Senator McCain noted in his statement before the OSCE meeting in Monaco, ``The demand for justice for Sergei is what has mobilized the world in his memory.''

Senator McCain is right to point out that the OSCE resolution--as well as national initiatives to punish those implicated in Sergei Magnitsky's death--is not anti-Russia. Indeed, a return to the rule of law would be of great benefit to the Russian people. To quote my colleague Senator McCain:

Defending the innocent and punishing the guilty is pro-

Russia. . . . The virtues that Sergei Magnitsky embodied--

integrity, fair-dealing, fidelity to truth and justice, and

the deepest love of country, which does not turn a blind eye

to the failings of one's government, but seeks to remedy them

by insisting on the highest standards--this too is pro-

Russia, and I would submit that it represents the future that

most Russians want for themselves and their country.

Senator McCain then goes on to encourage the assembly to align ``with the highest aspirations of the Russian people--Sergei's aspirations-- for justice, for equal dignity under the law, and for the indomitable spirit of human freedom.''

Like the OSCE, Members of this Senate will also have an opportunity to lend our voices to the call for justice and accountability. The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act would impose travel and financial sanctions on those associated with human rights crimes.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to uphold this country's commitment to the protection of human rights. I salute the leadership of my colleague and friend Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland for his leadership in this regard, and I am pleased to note that the Magnitsky Act was included during consideration of extending normal trade relations to Russia in yesterday's Senate Finance Committee markup. We are making great progress on this issue, and I look forward to a vote on the Senate floor.

In conclusion, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record

Senator McCain's full remarks at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank my friend.

Absolutely. I thank my friend for leading us in this colloquy. We ought to be talking about jobs and the economy. We ought to be bringing

legislation to the floor and giving our side an opportunity to offer suggestions and hearing if the majority party in this Senate has something to offer other than the 3\1/2\ years of failed policies.

Their intentions are absolutely honorable. Everyone wants to create jobs. Everyone wants the unemployment rate to go down. But I think any fair observer would have to conclude that after 3\1/2\ years, the policies of the majority party in this body, the policies of the Obama administration, have been an utter failure--forty consecutive months of unemployment over 8 percent. The latest numbers were 8.2 percent. The last time we had a comparable sustained period of joblessness was World War II. It is absolutely unbelievable that the policies of our Democratic friends have been so unsuccessful and such a failure.

To put that in context, in September of 2008, we had a severe crisis because of the subprime loans, because of the excesses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which a lot of us who have been in the Congress for some time have tried to rein in. Because of that subprime crisis, unemployment went through the roof, the economy crashed.

The other crisis we had earlier than that, of course, was September 11, 2001, when the terrorists attacked the very heartland and soul of the United States of America--the Twin Towers, the Pentagon. In 2001 we had a spike in unemployment and our economy went in the tank.

Between that time, though, I think Americans should realize we did not have exactly everything we wanted in terms of job growth, but unemployment between 2002 and the middle of 2007 actually averaged between 4.5 percent unemployment and 6 percent unemployment. We were not happy with that then, but wouldn't we love to have that level of unemployment now rather than the 8.2 percent and the over 8 percent we have sustained for 40 straight months.

As a matter of fact, Americans need to remember this does not have to be the case, the 8.2 percent. As late as October 2007, the unemployment rate in this country was 4.4 percent. We can do that again, but we will not do it again with the failed policies the President and his party have been imposing on our country during their entire stewardship.

The Senator from Missouri mentioned it has been 8 percent or higher, and the effective rate is 11 percent if everybody who had left the job force came back trying to get a job. Actually, the unemployment rate in the African-American community is 15 percent--an astounding and shameful figure.

The Obama stimulus program failed. It cost us over $800 billion, and we are going to have to pay that back somehow, but it failed. The unemployment rate for 40 straight months remains above 8 percent. Dodd- Frank failed. The Affordable Care Act not only has made health care less affordable and less available, but it has failed to stimulate any jobs.

Then yesterday, as a member of the Banking Committee, I heard testimony, and this country heard testimony, from the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Basically, he said he has lowered the economic expectations. He and the rest of the Federal Reserve now say the economy is going to get worse than they expected in January of this year, and the unemployment rate will be above 7 percent in his estimation, even at the end of calendar year 2014. That would be 6 straight years, under these current policies--unless we change our approach to job creation--that would be 6 straight years of unemployment higher than it ever was during the first 7 years even of the Bush administration.

We have some ideas about how to turn that around: an American-made energy policy; ending this regime of overregulation, which is just such a wet blanket on job creation; and ending the situation we have now of the tax burden on job creators. The tax burden on American risk takers is now higher than on any of our allies in the industrialized world. We hit job creators and risk takers and the people we want to help us with this 8.2-percent unemployment rate. We hit them harder than they do in any other country in the industrialized world.

So we have some ideas. We would like an honest-to-goodness jobs bill, and we would like the majority leader to give us a vote on some amendments. Do not just call up a bill, fill up the tree, offer every amendment you could possibly offer on the Democratic side, file cloture, and call that a filibuster. We need to go back to regular order in this Senate and let's offer some ideas. Let's have a debate again on this Senate floor about some ideas we have about job creation.

So I am glad to join my colleagues. I see my friend from Georgia in the Chamber, and I know he has been very thoughtful about this issue.

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

Mr. President, it has been a tough day, a tough week. We could use a little bipartisanship in this Chamber and in this Congress. I don't understand it. We heard the Democratic leadership of the supercommittee come right out the other day and say that it was preferable to her that the fiscal cliff be encountered and that we actually bring our Nation over the fiscal cliff rather than working together in a bipartisan way to avoid it before the end of the year.

Then I was mystified today to learn that the majority leader of this great body proposes next year, if his party remains in power, to forever change the nature of the Senate in terms of being a great deliberative body and to go to the majority-rule 51-vote process that they have in the House. It worked OK in the House, but we have never done that in the Senate.

I am concerned with some of the things I have been hearing, and, frankly, I hope we can come back from the precipice of some of these disturbing proposals I have heard. One way to do that would be to address, in a bipartisan way, this issue of sequestration. So I rise this afternoon to point out to my colleagues that we are now less than 6 months away from seeing sequestration go into effect. This is a grim reality that was never supposed to happen. It is a reality that doesn't have to happen. But it will happen unless we act and unless the President signs legislation. Budget sequestration means defense and nondefense spending will be cut automatically and across the board, without regard to the priorities or the importance of programs. We need to avoid this.

How did we get here? Almost a year ago, Congress voted for the Budget Control Act as a first step toward seriously addressing the national debt. We authorized, in good faith, a supercommittee to produce a blueprint that would reduce the national deficit by $1.5 trillion or more. Our hope and our expectation was that both political parties would come to a reasoned, long-term solution to America's debt crisis. Of course, that hope faded quickly with the announcement of an impasse by the supercommittee.

With a national debt approaching an unprecedented $16 trillion, reining in Federal spending is imperative to our national and economic security. ADM Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put it simply: ``Our debt is our number one national security threat.'' Severe, across-the-board cuts to the Department of Defense are not the way to address this security threat, and they are not the way to achieve long-term fiscal responsibility. Federal debt is a national security threat, to be sure, but so is unilaterally cutting key funding to America's men and women in uniform.

Realistically confronting the debt problem means addressing soaring entitlement costs, which are growing at three times the rate of inflation, three times the rate of our economic growth. We can't sustain that. But realistically confronting the debt does not mean gambling with the resources our military needs to protect this Nation and the skilled jobs necessary to supply today's advanced force.

Unless we act, and act soon, $492 billion will be cut from defense spending beginning January 3, 2013.

According to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the effect would be ``devastating''--a ``meat axe.'' Our Secretary of Defense, a member of the Obama administration, said it would ``hollow out the force.'' Unfortunately, Secretary Panetta and the White House, so far, have failed to identify the specific impact of these cuts. Clarity is needed as to how these automatic cuts would limit our capabilities. As of this moment, sequestration is the law of the land unless Congress passes-- and the President signs--a bill to stop it. The administration needs to get specific about the results of this ``meat axe.''

Our military faces a diverse set of challenges and emerging threats-- a nuclear North Korea, a volatile Iran that wants to be nuclear, our commitment to a Democratic Taiwan, and the competition for mineral resources in the South China Sea. All of these and more require the ability to project American power abroad.

This year we celebrate the bicentennial of the War of 1812, and the lessons of that conflict should be remembered. During that war, it was our Navy that reaffirmed America's sovereignty. The United States saw that even the border of an expansive ocean would not fully protect our Nation. The influence of sea power on national security and commerce was clear then and it remains clear today.

As ranking member of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower, I can attest that the Navy Department is the Armed Forces' most capital- intensive branch, and the Navy will be particularly hit hard by indiscriminate sequestration cuts. According to civilian and uniformed Navy leaders, our capacity to deter threats, defend our priorities, and project sea power could be gravely compromised. Sequestration would hurt readiness, fleet size, strategic investment, and the strength of America's workforce.

The projected numbers are striking. The Marine Corps would endure an additional 10-percent cut in troop strength, leaving our marines without sufficient manpower to meet even one major contingency operation. The Navy fleet would drop to 230 ships, well below the Navy's 313-ship requirement. It would drop to 230 from 313, hindering the ability of our combatant commanders to execute their missions abroad. Even now, the Navy can satisfy only half of combatant commander requests for naval support.

Sequestration could affect the quality of future investments and the long-term vitality of America's shipbuilding workforce. Experience has shown that stable shipbuilding rates have a direct impact on the acquisition and operational cost of amphibious ships, aircraft carriers, and submarines. Cuts would prevent the Navy from ensuring new ships are delivered on time and on budget.

The average age of today's shipyard worker is 45, and only 24 percent of our naval shipbuilding workforce is under 35 years of age. Sequestration would drive a generation of skilled shipbuilders from the workforce and would have a prolonged negative impact on American high- tech manufacturing.

I am proud to be from a State with a highly skilled manufacturing base. Mississippi workers produce ships, aircraft, and equipment that our troops depend upon throughout the world. Sharp cuts to defense will have a direct and detrimental impact on Mississippi's families and communities.

The stakes are high for the military and America's economy. These looming cuts are real, they are drastic, and they are just around the corner. Sequestration is real and not a hypothetical threat. It is the law unless we change it. Our national security is on the line, and it is in our interest either to prevent sequestration or prepare for it. Indeed, some defense manufacturers have already begun the process of issuing legally required layoff warning notices to shareholders and employees.

According to multiple forecasts, up to 1 million American jobs are at risk. The current unemployment rate already stands at 8.2 percent, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke projected unemployment rates will remain high, as he testified before the Congress yesterday and today.

There are some faint and hopeful signs this catastrophe can be avoided. Indeed, in the Congress, there has always been bipartisan cooperation to ensure our military remains the best trained, the best equipped, and most professional fighting force in the world. We argue about a lot of things, but bipartisanship has prevailed when it comes to the defense budget. The fiscal year 2013 Defense authorization bill is a hopeful example.

The bill recently passed by the Armed Services Committee, of which I

am a member, contains many provisions reflecting Congress's support of the Defense Department's top strategic priorities. It also reflects the challenges we may encounter while outlining ways to reduce spending, and we must reduce military spending, no question about it. But sequestration is not the way.

Also, with regard to the Defense authorization bill, I should mention this is the 51st consecutive year that Congress has passed such a bill. Again, that is testimony to bipartisanship with regard to DOD reauthorization. That is the good news. The bad news is the failure to address our past spending has compounded the situation we now face. Further delays only make the problem worse.

We know tough decisions will have to be made to fix our country's debt problem. All Federal agencies, including DOD, will have to do more with less in today's era of fiscal austerity. But the bottom line is this: We have an overriding constitutional obligation to provide for the common defense, to ensure our country is safe, and that our men and women in uniform are well equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to work together in a bipartisan fashion toward a solution that achieves the fiscal discipline we need without compromising the ability of our military to protect and defend America.

Addressing sequestration should be our No. 1 priority--this week. We should act before the August break. After Labor Day, after the political conventions, when campaigns are in full swing and we have only 2 months to go before these devastating cuts go into effect, do we truly believe the atmosphere will be conducive to solving sequestration? I don't think so. Is it truly in our Nation's best national security interest to address this during a lameduck session? I don't think so. We should not leave town for an August break if we have not answered this sequestration issue. The hour is upon us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that LCDR Brian Amador, a Navy fellow in my Senate office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the time.