they stand for, it defames the spirit of our nation and we all grow poorer because of it. our reputations, our character are the only things we leave behind when we depart this earth. and unjust acts that malign the good name of a decent and honorable person is not only wrong, it is contrary to everything we hold dear as americans. some years ago, i had the pleasure, along with my friend, the senator from south carolina, lindsey graham, of traveling overseas with our colleague, then-senator hillary clinton. by her side, as always, was huma. and i had the pleasure of seeing firsthand her hard work and dedicated service on behalf of the former senator from new york. a that was continue a service to this day at the department of state and is sacrifice of huma

abidn. i have every confidence in her loyalty to our country and everyone else should as well. all americans owe her a debt of gratitude for her many years of superior public service. i hope these ugly and unfortunate attacks on her can be immediately brought to an end and put behind us before any further damage is done to a woman, an american of genuine patriotism and love of country. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. coats: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from in. mr. coats: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mr. president, i come to the floor today to comment on a couple of things. one, the dialogue that took place this morning before the majority leader and minority leader relative to how the senate should function -- two different views on this between the two, and they had quite an exchange. i don't know how many people tuned in. i tuned in this morning and then found myself pretty engaged in that. it all stemmed from the fact that the majority leader announced that he was not going

to bring any of the appropriations bill to the floor for debate, consideration, amendment, or voting. i'm a member of that appropriations committee. we've spent a very considerable amount of time this year believing that the initial information passed on to us was that we would return to regular order. and, that is, the committees, forming through a committee process how we spend our money, the limitations, where it should be sent -- we have held all the hearings, we bring in all the agencies, everybody presents their budget, defends their budget, we make decisions, we come up with legislation that -- 13 separate pieces of legislation that cover the functions of this consequently and how we're going to pay for it. so we go through all this work and we work through subcommittee and then we work through full committee, and then the bills

are ready, stacked up, waiting to be brought to the floor, to be debating here by members -- both republicans and democrats, both sides of the aisle -- amendments offered, modified, the same process happens in the house, we merge the two bills, bring one product here, have a final vote, send to the president, he either signs it or rejects it. but that is a necessary procedure. that was written into the way this congress is designed to function. and yet, that procedure has essentially been discarded, and to then hear that after all that effort by all of us in our respective committees, including the appropriations committee but also authorizing committees, in terms of how we're going to spend the money and what direction it goes, after all

this effort, we're told no, none of those bills will be brought to the floor. well, that is not the function of the senate to not do that. the response is well, we'll put it all into one big ball at the end, 13 bills. it's called an omnibus bill. earlier, we had had something put together called the mini bus. that is, they took three essential programs, authorizing programs and put them together, and we were then asked to have either a yes or a no vote on the whole thing, and i came down to speak about that and said, you know, there is a reason why the public is so frustrated with the congress. they can't get clear answers from their respective members as to whether they are for something or against something because when you combine all these bills together, of course

you're for parts of it and you're against parts of it, but you're only allowed one vote, yes or no. when i ran for office in 2007, i pledged to the people of indiana that if i were elected, i would do everything i could to let my yes be yes and my no be no as it applied to a specific program or a specific spending item. so that they can then evaluate their senator in terms of how he was representing them, and they can make a judgment then that i want to support this person or i'm opposed to supporting this person because i don't agree with his vote on this or i support him because i do agree with that. that's the clarity and transparency that the american people are asking for, and of course they are getting just exactly the opposite here. the other problem with that -- with not bringing these bills to the floor one by one and having open debate with the opportunity to offer amendments to adjust them, you either pass your amendment or you don't pass your

amendment, but in the end, the whole thing has been vetted, vetted in front for the american people to see, for us to understand, and therefore when we do vote, we know that our yes means yes and our no means no. and so it's a mystery to me why in this year and in previous years under the leadership of the majority leader we have not done what the senate traditionally is historically designed to do and has done and what i think is a duty and a responsibility that we have to the people that we represent to address this. now, in normal times, normal times of economic growth, maybe you can get away with something like this, but at a time when our lack of action contributes to an already staggering economy, many analysts say headed back into recession, when we look at the situation around the world and see slowing down

of economic activity and the problems in china and brazil and in india, the major markets, and we see what's happening in europe and we read from analysts the -- their evaluation of our current economic situation here and how this pending economic cliff, fiscal cliff that we're driving toward by the end of the year unless we address it, how that uncertainty over all of that is affecting negatively our economy and affecting those who are in a position to either buy new machinery for their plant, increase employment, do more research, expand their -- expand their business. they are frozen in time saying i can't make decisions because there is uncertainty about what money would be available, what our budget will be, what our tack rate will be, what you're health care obligations will be,

what the federal government will be doing with its budget in terms of how it affects their business. so whether it's paving roads or funding hospitals, addressing education issues or any other function that federal, state, local governments or individuals and businesses get involved in, this cloud of uncertainty that has settled over this country has kept us from putting those policies in place that are going to restore our country to economic growth, that are going to put people back to work and get our country back on track toward fiscal health. and that economy is not happening. this is something that shouldn't be divided on a partisan basis. we are all witnessing, whether it's you're list toning a liberal economic commentator or conservative economic analyst,

there is a growing consensus that inactivity, that this stalemate that exists is contributing significantly, and the failure to address the fact that we are heading toward this fiscal cliff with all the ramifications of that is -- has enormous negative consequences if we don't take some action. so it's not just about the appropriations process, although that goes to the dysfunction, i think, of this united states senate, but it's also about the larger question of some of the major issues that lie before us, that the congress is simply not addressing. we are viewed as a dysfunctional institution, either incapable or unwilling to address the critical issues facing our country. in particular, the dismal state of our economy and the fact that we have now for 41 straight months had unemployment above

8%. this morning, more than 12 million americans woke up without a job, and another dozen or so, maybe a little less, woke up with a job much below their abilities, much below what they had hoped to to gain a salary and a pay package that allows them to pay the mortgage and buy their groceries, save for their children's education, so the underemployed combined with the unemployed is a staggering number. that is -- that is something that we have a -- i believe a moral duty to address, and we may have a disagreement as to policies. i understand that. but when we're not even allowed to come down to this floor and debate those policies and have a package of legislation in front of us in which, we think, will address some of these situations, that is simply

taking a pass at a time when our country desperately needs us to be engaged. if you looked at "the washington post" this morning, you saw in there the account of federal reserve chairman ben bernanke's testimony before the senate yesterday, and i want to quote what he said." the most effective way that the congress could help support the economy right now would be to work to address the nation's fiscal challenges in a way that takes into account both the need for long-run sustainability and the fragility of the recovery. i think if that question was posed to a member of this body, whether that member is conservative or liberal, democrat or republican, i think most would simply say i agree

with that. i can't find fault with what he said. you know, we look to the fed to solve all of our problems, and when the fed has used just about every major tool they have, they might have a couple little ones left, you can only do so much with monetary policy. the problem is fiscal policy and fiscal policy is the responsibility of the united states congress and the executive branch and the president. now, we're not -- look, it's -- it's clear. we're not going to get any leadership from this president, at least until after this election has taken place. he's clearly in campaign mode. he is not doing business out of the white house relative to policies. he even said months and months and months ago, well, that's -- we're not really going to do any more this year, so that's all been put on hold. like i say, in normal times, that might be what presidents ought to be doing. these are not normal times. we're not getting the leadership that we need and everything we tried to do in 2011 was stopped simply because we didn't get support from the top.

but let's set that aside. let's set that aside right now and acknowledge that what the federal reserve chairman has said will have a major negative impact on this economy if the congress doesn't step up and do -- and take its responsibility and do what we all know that we need to do. i repeat again that statement by the federal reserve chairman. the most effective way that the congress could help support the economy right now would be to work to address the nation's fiscal challenges in a way that takes into account both the need for long-run sustainability and the fragility, the fragility of the economy. economists from across the political spectrum are sounding the alarm. analysts report that the threat of the fiscal crisis in europe is now being displaced by the threat of our country's inaction

and refusal to address this fiscal cliff. now the american people and american industry and american business needs to know what is our plan to stabilize our economy. yes, it's important what spain is doing and italy is doing and greece is doing and germany is doing and france is doing to work on the european situation. those of us that live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones. a lot of criticism over what they are doing or not doing over across the atlantic. but we ought to be looking at ourselves and saying how dare we tell them what they need to do, as some have tried to do, when we aren't doing anything ourselves to address this. and what we are doing is having a negative impact, not only in my state but across the country. household confidence is waning. retail sales are down, according

to the latest report. the manufacturing sector is taking a hit, and as i said earlier, 41 consecutive months of unemployment above 8%. so it falls to congress to act. unfortunately, now we have been told that even on the regular process of how we act on a year-by-year basis to set the spending standards for the taxpayers' hard-earned money out of this federal government, set those standards, we're unwilling to have open debates, we're unwilling to have -- the majority leader will allow us to have amendments, won't even bring the bill to the floor. all this legislation is needed to sensibly run this federal government, and yet it's being run in a way that throws everything into the pot and it goes right up to the edge, and we have this drama over whether or not they will pass it or not pass it. in the meantime, the negative

impact that has on our economy is very, very troubling and not something that we ought to -- we ought to be doing. so here i am again voicing my frustration over our inability to step up to the responsibilities that have been given us by the american people to come here and do our very best, make our best arguments, put forward our best plans, but come to some conclusion as to where we're going in this country in dealing with this fiscal cliff -- and it's not just a fiscal cliff. it is a whole range of issues that have enormous implications for our national defense, for our economy, for our budget, for going forward -- for our retirees, for those who are beneficiaries of some of the programs of the federal government, major implications, and all that is left in a cloud of uncertainty. the interesting thing to me is that whether you are a democrat

or a republican, whether you are the president of the united states or a candidate for president of the united states, good policy is what the american people are looking for. action is what they're looking for. debate is what they're looking for. and then putting that forward with some sense of certainty in terms of where we're going. but right now, politics seems to be dominating the presidential race, and i don't think there is anything we can do about that, but what we can do here in this body is acknowledge that was acknowledged by a lot of democrats and a lot of republicans in 2011 but not accomplished. what we can do is what we had the responsibility to do, and that is to step into the breach and do everything that we can to put those policies in place that i think there is substantial agreement on, put those policies in place that will get our economy moving again and most importantly put some certainty

in what the future looks like so that those who go shopping and those who make products and those who are part of our american economy have the certainty of knowing what the future looks like, and so they can make decisions. we have the chance, mr. president, we have the chance given these recent -- new discoveries that can lead us to energy independence, given our established rule of law, given the fact that right now america is really only the safe haven and even that's getting less safe to invest your money if you're overseas. we have the opportunity if we put -- if we step up to our responsibilities to open up a new chapter to put america back in its place as that shining city on a hill, that place of freedom and opportunity, that place to where you want to put your money and invest, where you want to raise your children, the place the world looks to, the country the world looks to to take the lead. we have the golden opportunity

now to send that signal, and i think the investment markets would respond in dramatic impact. we would start putting people back to work, we would get our economy humming again, because people would look at us then and say they are taking this debt and deficit situation seriously. they have put a credible long-term plan in place to address it, and we now have the confidence to go forward knowing that america will still be "the" place to live, to work, to raise a family, to invest. we can bring our economy back. so i'm trying to end here on a positive note simply by saying, good policy is good politics and the people are hungry for us to stand up and basically say, this is what we believe in, this is what we stand for. yes, we had to modify this or modify that in order to get consent on going forward but we're going forward. and we now know what the plan's going to be and we now can send the signal to the world that the congress has lived up to its responsibility. not going to get it out of the white house, at least until

november. this is the body where the responsibility falls and i think all of us need to stand up and understand not only our constitutional duties but our moral responsibility to move forward and under regular order address the issues that are so critical to the future of this nation. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas is recognized. the presiding officer: the senator from to address the senate as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, kansas, your neighboring state, has a long and remarkable history of supporting our nation's aviation industry, both

commercially and in support of our nation's men and women in uniform. in kansas, roughly 40,000 citizens support approximately 270 aviation and aerospace companies and generate nearly $2.9 billion in exports annually from our state. many of those workers live in wichita, which has long been known as the air capital of the world. not only do these workers contribute to the vitality of our state's economy but they also strengthen our nation's economy and they certainly contribute to our nation's defense. at both mcconnell air force base and forbes field in topeka, members of the active, reserve and national guard serve our country through a variety of missions. since 1941, mcconnell air force base has been an instrumental part of the wichita community and kansans have a proud history of standing behind the airmen and women who have called mcconnell home. mcconnell air force base employs more than 17,000 people,

military and civilian, and last year had an overall impact of more than $520 million on our local economy. i've come to the floor today to outline my support, my strong support, for mcconnell air force base as the best choice for our nation's new tanker fleet, the kc-46a's. currently air force is considering mcconnell as the first home or main operating base one for the new tanker, which will be put into service in 2016. mcconnell air force base is our nation's best choice. mcconnell already houses a total of 63 kc-135r tankers. 48 are assigned and manned, plus an additional 15 for global contingency purposes, making it by far the largest tanker presence in our country. in fact, mcconnell is considered the supertanker base in the air force, with twice the number of tankers there than any other base.

looking at the geography of the united states, it's clear mcconnell serves our country well in terms of air mobility. strategically located in the nation's heartland, equal distance from both coasts, mcconnell's location is a great's set. to this point, the 22nd air fueling wing and the 931st refueling group at mcconnell are frequently called upon for refueling missions within a 1,000-mile service radius of the base which further highlights the reliability of this location in the midwest for domestic or overseas missions. 1,000 nautical miles is a vast portion of the continental united states and includes hundreds of routes, military operating areas and airspace reserved for various air missions. mcconnell supports all branches of the military and allied partners, refueling off either coast and around the world every day. the air force has long taken advantage of the expansive airspace available over and

around kansas so it would be natural for mcconnell air force base to continue its important air mobility missions with the kc-46a's. mcconnell is also -- also has a clear advantage in personnel because it houses both active and reserve airmen and women in the air mobility mission. the air force calls this arrangement a classic association. mcconnell is one of the only few bases in the country that can boast this level of coordination between the active and reserve in air mobility missions. the 22nd and the 1931st are prime examples of active and reserve components working together, sharing capabilities, collocating in various facilities, integrating crews and providing global support to operational needs. the 22nd and 931st have a tremendous history of conducting air mobility operations not only throughout the united states but in places today in libya and syria, turkey, iraq, and afghanistan. furthermore, the air force has

indicated their strong preference for this arrangement as they choose the location for the first round of kc-46a tankers. another advantage mcconnell boasts is the surrounding community that fully supports and embracing the airmen and women and their families. since 1960, an organization of area business leaders and residents called "friends of mcconnell" has supported the men and women of mcconnell air base through a wide range of programs and special events on and off the base each year. one of those programs, the honorary commander program, pairs up 30 squadron and group commanders with local civic leaders for two years to build meaningful relationships between civilians and military leaders. when i talk with the airmen and women stationed at mcconnell, they will tell me how much they've enjoyed the quality of life that wichita offers them and their families. when it comes to air force air mobility missions, there are four components that make a mission successful: airmen, command and control,

infrastructure, and equipment. mcconnell air force base not only has the extremely capable airmen of the 22nd and the 931st but also has the proven command and control to handle a myriad of operational needs and a sprawling infrastructure with enormous capacity. mcconnell will soon have the newest runway in the air force at a length of 12,000 feet, which exceeds, way exceeds the requirements of the first round for the tankers. by locating the new tankers at mcconnell, the air force would have the strategic flexibility and capability needed to carry out a variety of missions, both here an at home and abroad. now is the time for the air force to replace the aging kc-135r's with the iron of kc-46a's at mcconnell air force base. the air force has made clear that the acquisition and recapitalization of the kc-46a is their top priority. air force chief of staff general

norton schwartz said it best when he stated -- quote -- "the kc-46a tanker is a critical force multiplier and essential to the way this nation fights its wars and provides humanitarian support around the globe." i agree. i recently had the opportunity to speak with air force secretary michael donnelly while at the farnborough air show and i emphasized to him personally the need to base the kc-46a tankers at mcconnell air force base in order to meet the needs of global mobility. it is often said that the military difference between success and failure is logistics, and mcconnell air force base offers the instrumental, logistical muscle that is vital to successful strategic air power. kansans have a long history of supporting air power and air mobility and i know that mcconnell air force base is the best choice for our nation's new tanker fleet. i'm hopeful that kansas airmen ask women will continue to have -- and women will continue to have the opportunity of their tradition of serving and defending our nation with the first round of the kc-46a's.

mr. president, i yield the floor, but before i do that, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. sessions: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, i rise today to introduce legislation along with my friends and able colleague, senator ben cardin of maryland, that would create a national campaign at the department of health and human services to bring attention to congenital didiaphragmic hernia. what is c.d.h.? it's a birth der that occurs when the fetal diaphragm fails to fully develop, allowing abdominal organize ans to migrate into the -- organs to migrate into the chest. this invasion of organize ans, including the bowel, stomach, spleen, liver, may severely

inhibit the growth of a baby's lungs. regretfully, some have recommended terminating the pregnancy when a woman learns that her unborn child has c.d.h. this is an important issue and awareness of this birth defect and the positive outcomes of good treatment is very importa important. c.d.h. will normally be diagnosed by a prenatal ultrasound as early as the 16th week of pregnancy and that's very important. if undiagnosed before birth, the baby may be born in a facility that is not equipped to treat its compromised respiratory system, because many c.d.h. babies need to be placed in a heart-lung bypass machine, which is not available in most hospitals -- in many hospitals. the lungs of a baby with c.d.h. are often too small biochemically immature,

structurally immature, and the flow in the blood vessels may be constricted, resulting in pulmonary hypertension. as a result, the babies are intube ated as soon as they're born and parents are often unable to hold their babies maybe for weeks or months at a time. most babies are repaired with surgery one to five days after birth, usually with a gore-tex patch. the abdominal organs that have migrated into the chest are put back where they're supposed to be, and the hole in the diaphragm is disclosed hopefully allowing the lungs to expand. hospitalization often ranges from three to ten weeks depending on the severity of the condition. survivors often have difficulty feeding, some require a second surgery to control reflux, others require a feeding tube,

and a few will reherniate and require additional repair. congenital diaphragmatic hernia occurs in one ou -- adding up te thank 600,000 babies born with c.d.h. since just 2000. c.d.h. is a severe, sometimes fatal, defect that occurs as often as cystic fibrosis and spina bifida. yet most people have never heard of c.d.h. in my opinion, awareness and early diagnosis and skilled treatment are the keys to greater survival rate in these babies. 50% of the babies born with c.d.h. are said not to survive. in 2009, my grandson, jimbo, now 2 1/2 years old, was diagnosed with c.d.h. during my daughter's 34th week of pregnancy.

although she had both a 20-week and 30-week ultrasounds, the nurses and doctors did not catch the disease on the baby's heartbeat monitor. thankfully, when mary abigail and her navy officer husband paul and daughter moved, her baby's heartbeat was heard with her new o.b. she was sent to jacksonville, florida, nearby for a fetal echo. the technician told her she wasn't going to do the echo. there was something else wrong with the baby. she asked my daughter had she ever heard of congenital diaphragmatic hernia? often mary abigail had not. and at that time our family did not know of this problem or the extent of our grandson's birth defect. my daughter and her family were temporarily able to move.

the navy allowed them to the nearest place, to gainesville, florida, the university of florida school there and on november 16 jimbo was born two weeks later on november 30. they heard their son cry out twice after he was born and right before they intubated him, but they were not allowed to held him. the doctors let his little lungs get strong before they did the surgery to correct the hernia, and they did that when he was four days old. as it turned out, the hole in his diaphragm was large and his intestines and mean and one kidney had moved up into the chest cavity pressing on the lungs. thankfully, he did not have to go on a heart bypass machine but was on an intubator. in total he was in the nicu for

43 days before he was able to go home, all under the constant watch of his angel mother. i could not have been prouder of her and should i and paul were just wonderful during this time. this country has superb health care, the world's best. without even our knowledge this young navy family was sent off to the university of florida at gainesville, had their unborn child -- was actually diagnosed in jacksonville, and then they were recognized to go to the university of florida hospital. fortunately for my family and thousands of other similar families across the united states, there are a number of physicians doing incredible work to combat c.d.h. by chance, the university of florida's shann's children's

hospital is surely one of the world's best, maybe the best. the c.d.h. survival rate at shann's in gains reconcil gaines unprecedented. the survival rate is being reported at 80% to 90%. the physician for my grandson's surgery uses gentle ventilation therapy as opposed to hyper ventilation. gentle ventilation therapy, he has discovered over the years, is less aggressive and therefore protects the undeveloped lungs. and jimbo, i got to say, is a wonderful little boy, full of energy and enthusiasm, happy, active, one of the most happy young children i've ever seen, so quick to smile. this weekend i attended his big sister jane ritchie's birthday

party, five years old she is, and he was totally happy running around off the playground equipment with the older children, just like he was one of them. he thought he was in high cotton to be playing with these big boys and girls. while the challenges of many, so are the successes in this condition. and every year there are more successes. so my family has been very lucky that jimbo's defect was caught before he was born, that he was able to go to the right place, a first-rate place to seek excellent care for the condition. the bill senator cardin and i are introducing today is important because a national campaign for c.d.h. will help bring awareness to this birth defect and save lives. i'm convinced of it. although hundreds of thousands of babies have been diagnosed with this defect, the causes are unknown and more research is

needed. the thousands of happy, growing children who have overcome this condition validates what has been accomplished to date and encourages us to do even more. so i hope my colleagues will join me and my friend and colleague, senator cardin, in supporting this bill to bring awareness of c.d.h. to the world. and i think it will create more happy and healthy young people in the years to come. so i would thank the chair, would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. blumenthal: mr. president in. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut is recognized. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. may i ask that the quorum call be lifted, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor today, mr. president, and join in supporting strongly and i hope persuasively the voices of my colleagues in favor of the bring jobs home act. the bring jobs home act is a measure that contains some provisions that are partly nov novel, not complex, a matter of common sense. they involve some of the basic ideas that we have advanced and advocated in this chamber for sometime. they are measures that are contained in a proposal very

eloquently argued for by my colleague, senator stabenow, and i thank her for her leadership, as well as for leader reid's leadership in bringing this michigameasure to the floor now. very simply, the bring jobs home act will restore jobs to this country with two simple, straightforward provisions, very simply, this measure provides a 20% tax credit for the expenses incurred in moving facilities or a plant, basically jobs, back to america. and it also does something that is critically vital to this country, which is to close the loopholes that right now we reward companies for moving those jobs overseas again and again and again over the past two years, i have advocated this

straightforward, simple step. close the loopholes that permit companies to deduct expenses for moving those jobs overseas. the average american, certainly the average person in connecticut when told that these loopholes exist simply is incredulous. they cannot believe that the united states of america rewards companies for moving these jobs overseas. let's close that loophole now. it will produce revenue for the united states, substantial amounts of revenue, literally tens of millions of dollars will come back to our country as a result of closing this loophole and jobs will come back as well. the 20% tax credit, although it may not sound like a lot of

money to major corporations, could well be the tipping point for executives considering what to do in terms of investing in this country. it is an incentive to invest in the united states instead of moving these jobs abroad, 20% tax credit could be a critical decision point and a turning point in those decisions. the boston consulting group surveyed 37 companies which have $10 billion or more in revenues and found that 50% of them are at that tipping point. this measure should not be partisan, it should not be a matter of geography or party as

to whether or not one of our colleagues supports it. it should be a bipartisan coalition behind it, and i have found in connecticut as i go around the state, regardless of party, people support this idea of bringing jobs home, reshoring and restoring jobs to our state and to our country, particularly manufacturing jobs. in the city of waterbury where i visited on monday, in front of a steel plant, there are 3,000 manufacturing jobs, part of the 165,000 manufacturing jobs that we have in connecticut. manufacturing is alive and well. taxpayers should not be subsidized. companies that move those kinds of jobs overseas in the last ten years, 2.4 million jobs were shipped overseas, mostly

manufacturing, and taxpayers helped to foot the bill for them. in connecticut, in the future, the national bureau of economic research has found more than 250,000 jobs are at risk of being outsourced. people are angry and outraged that they are that risk, that outsourcing and offshoring of jobs. in the steel plant that i visited, fortunately, those jobs have stayed, but around the country and in connecticut, many of them have moved overseas because of the economic incentives that we have created and that now we should stop. at a time when job creation is our number-one priority, american taxpayers deserve that these loopholes and hidden

subsidies be closed and ended forever. and i hope that i speak for many of my colleagues in saying shipping jobs overseas with the subsidies and incentives now provided very simply is unacceptable. let's pass the bring jobs home act now to close those loopholes and to provide these incentives so that companies like otis elevator at united technology, dupont, ford, masterlock, g.e., spectrum plastics in ansonia, connecticut, will be encouraged to continue doing the right thing, bringing those jobs back, walking the walk and walking jobs back to montana and to the united states. i will be voting yes to bring jobs home, and again i thank my

colleague, senator stabenow, for her invaluable leadership on this issue, and i'm proud to join her today. thank you so much. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan is recognized. ms. stabenow: thank you, madam president. i first want to thank my friend and colleague from connecticut for his commitment and compassion and passion on this issue, and i appreciate very much his joining with me and others to come together to put forward what i think is a commonsense bill that focuses on closing a major loophole that is requiring basically taxpayers' help with the bill when jobs are shipped overseas. so i want to thank the senator from connecticut for his efforts and commitment, and i know that he shares my belief that we need to be bringing jobs home. and that's what we intend to do. so, mr. president, i do want to

speak today about the legislation that's in front of us. we will have the opportunity tomorrow morning, unless we can come together and agree that we don't have to go forward and have this vote to stop a filibuster, if we could agree just to bring up the bill and discuss it and pass it, it would be terrific. we know we have a majority to support this bill and be able to pass it, send it to the house and the president who will sign it in 30 seconds, i know, to be able to close this loophole, but we're unfortunately engaged in something right now that we are engaged in all the time now. it used to be a rare occurrence to have an objection that triggers a filibuster. now it's on every issue. so we find ourselves waiting to be able to vote to see whether or not we're going to be able to get a supermajority to be able to go to this bill, and that is

very concerning to me, given the fact that we do have a majority of the senate that wants to debate and pass this bill and we have the vast majority of americans. it is not about democrats and republicans. we have people all over this country who want to see us move forward on this bill as well as others that will focus on jobs, focus on bringing jobs home. we want to build an economy that lasts, and the way we do that, first of all, i believe, is by making things, making things in america. a few weeks ago, we passed a farm bill, an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. as chairman of the agriculture committee, working with my ranking member, senator roberts, we very much appreciated the hard work and support of members on both sides of the aisle to pass something that's involved in growing things, and i think we don't have a middle class in

this country, we don't have an economy unless we make things and grow things. so we showed that we could come together around a major piece of legislation that invests in growing things and all of the offshoots of that as it relates to the food economy. this is an opportunity to say we get it when it comes to making things and bringing jobs back from overseas so we can make more things, again, in america. it's unbelievable to me and i know it's unbelievable to hard-working men and women in michigan and i know all across the country that right now companies actually get a tax write-off for packing up shop, paying for their moving expenses, doing what they need to do to close down and move jobs overseas. it's actually astounding. and when we look at the fact that we have lost 2.4 million jobs in the last ten years

because of that, it is really outrageous when you think about it that we're losing 2.4 million jobs and it continues, and at the same time american taxpayers are helping to foot the bill. that makes absolutely no sense. we have heard a lot about tax reform from members on both sides of the aisle, and i support that. i think there are some larger tax issues. as a member of the finance committee, i'm committed to addressing a range of issues that deal with incentives and how we compete globally and our companies are able to compete globally, but this is tax reform that we can do right now. we don't have to wait for something big to come someday. we're going to have an opportunity in the next day to vote on tax reform immediately, mr. president, and i know you share the desire to bring those jobs home.

the fact is we have something very simple and straightforward that we're going to be asked to vote on. first of all, the bring jobs home act would end the taxpayer subsidies that are helping to pay for moving costs for corporations who are closing up shop, sending jobs overseas. secondly, we're going to allow companies to have that deduction when they bring the jobs back, so if we have a company wanting to close up shop in china, bring the jobs back, we're happy to allow a business tax deduction for that. and on top of it, we will allow you an additional 20% tax credit for the cost of bringing those jobs back. so we're happy to do that but we're not paying to ship the jobs overseas. i don't know any country in the world right now that would have a tax policy that involves helping to pay for jobs leaving

their country. if anything, we're in a situation today where we have other countries either trying to block us from selling to them or they create incentives. i have mentioned so many times but it's true, i have talked to companies who have had -- the chinese government approached them and said come on over, we'll build a plant for you, and then they steal your patent. but the fact is that other countries are aggressively trying to get what we have had as america, what has created the middle class of america, which is the ability to make things in this country. we don't seem to understand that if we're not vigilant, if we're not paying attention, if we're not focused, if we don't have the right policies, the right kinds of investments and partnerships with the private sector, they are going to have all of those middle-class jobs.

and so when we look at this, it's time to begin that process. in fact, it's way past time, it's way past time to do this. cheryl randecker would certainly agree with that. she worked at sansota for 33 years. she has a daughter who is ready to go to college. she is worried about how she is going to pay her bills and put food on the table and pay for her daughter's school, and now she finds she has lost her job. it's being shipped to china, and her employer gets a tax deduction that she is helping to pay for for the moving expenses. her co-worker, joyce, is 60 years old, has worked at the same company for 29 years. she has given them her whole career, and in those years, she has developed a very specific set of job skills that have made her a tremendous asset to the

work that they do at the facility, but those skills aren't necessarily transferable to another country, and she is worried those companies would rather hire somebody half her age to save money. and she is another person who must be absolutely outraged to find out that the taxes she has paid for nearly 30 years in her career are being used to help her company ship the jobs to china. i have heard similar worries from my constituents all over michigan, people who worked all their lives often for the same company in their late 50's and early 60's, just a few years shy of retirement, who suddenly find the rug pulled out from under them. and it's outrageous to think that those individuals who have played by the rules, worked hard their whole lives, suddenly find themselves in a situation where their jobs are shipped overseas

and american taxpayers are subsidizing it. we can change that. we can change that when we vote to move forward on this bill. you know, the good news is today and the reason we need to do this, to keep this momentum going is that we have a lot of companies that are now doing the math and finding it makes good business sense to bring jobs home. so we have some good news stories and we just need to keep them going. but our tax code needs to catch up with and reward those companies instead of putting them at a competitive disadvantage when we've got companies closing up here and shipping jobs the other way. caterpillar is making new investments in the united states bringing jobs back from japan and mexico and china. dupont is building a plant in charleston, south carolina, to produce kevlar and that's great

news. they're making investments in ohio and iowa and pennsylvania and delaware. all-clad metal crafters, who make high-end cookware have brought their production of lids back from china to the u.s. keen, a show manufacturer, just opened a 15,000 square foot plant to manufacture boots in portland, 0 oregon, production that used to be in china. master lock, the world's largest padlock maker moved jobs back to their facility in milwaukee, wisconsin and now have 50 products manufactured exclusively made in the united states with u.s. component parts. u.s. airways brought hundreds of jobs back to their call centers in arizona, nevada. today laurie manuel is joining me in just a few moments at a press conference to talk about how important those jobs are to

her and her colleagues. yesterday i was on the floor talking about our american automobile industry, very proud of ford that's retooled, the largest plant that they have in north america in wayne, michigan and because of that effort and new advance it bast batteries are bringing jobs back from mexico and we're now hearing china and other places. i know that g.m. and chrysler, very focused on jobs here and bringing jobs back, and that's all good news. these are companies that want to invest in america. they want to bring jobs home. our tax code should be rewarding that, not rewarding those who want to leave. our tax code still rewards their competitors who aren't making investments in america. and it makes absolutely no sense. when c.e.o.'s are making calculations about where to move production, we don't want the tax code standing in the way.

it's very simple. we know that we've got to focus on jobs in america. we're in a global economy, our companies are competing with countries and policies of countries, and investments by other countries. we've got to make sure we're doing everything that it's all hands on deck, everybody's moving in the same dreaks dreks, that the tax code works, that we're partnering in the right way in every part of our economy, that the message is sent out, bring jobs home. american made. that we want to strengthen america. this is about america first. that's what the tax code ought to focus on, and that's what this bill is all about.

and i'm hopeful that our colleagues will get beyond the politics of the moment. i know we're in an election year, i get the partisan politics of the moment. but there are people around our country counting on us, democrats, republicans, independents, folks who vote, folks who don't vote, who are counting on us to actually step up together and do things that make sense. this makes sense. we need to bring jobs home. this bill will help do that. thank you, mr. president. i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming is recognized. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor as i do each week as a physician who practiced medicine in wyoming for a quarter of a century taking care of so many families there to give a doctor's second

opinion about the health care law that has now been found constitutional by the supreme court, although it may not be unconstitutional, it is still unworkable, it is unaffordable and it is very unpopular. and today i want to talk about one of the specific components of the health care law and that is the issue of medicaid expansion. most of the discussion of the supreme court's health care decision has been focused on the individual mandate, that incredibly unpopular portion of the law that forces every american who buy a government-approved product. government-approved health insurance. the supreme court has ruled it a tax. it is a tax. still, the american people know that it is a mandate coming out of washington that they buy a government-approved product for the first time ever in american

history. so today i'd like to talk about another important part, which is the supreme court's ruling that the law's medicaid mandate is unconstitutional. as many americans know, medicaid is a government program that is jointly funded between states and the federal government. the president's health care law contained a huge expansion of medicaid, and more than half of the new insurance coverage provided by the health care law was supposed to be delivered through the medicaid program. the president's health care law forced states to expand their medicaid eligibility or face the loss of all their medicaid matching funds. currently, states put up some money and the federal government puts up some, it varies from state to state, and my home state of wyoming, the state puts up half, the federal government puts up the other half, and 15 states are in that 50-50 range.

in some states it goes up to 70 cents from the federal government and 30 cents from the state, across-the-board average is about 57 cents from washington, 43 cents from the home state. many states felt that this expansion, this forced expansion, this forced mandate on them was unconstitutional, that it was expensive and it would essentially leave states with no choice but to participate in the program. that, mr. president, is why 26 different states filed a lawsuit against the federal government to stop this massive medicaid overreach. the supreme court chief justice roberts and a majority of justices agreed with the states. chief justice roberts described the medicaid expansion as a -- quote -- "gun to the head" -- close quote that would leave states no choice but to participate in the program. the decision of the supreme court made clear that states cannot be forced by washington,

cannot be forced by washington to participate in the health care law's medicaid expansion. in response, after the supreme court announced its decision, a reporter asked senior white house officials how they would entice states to participate. according to the kaiser health news, the white house officials responded with laughter. apparently it seemed almost inconceivable to these white house officials that states would want to opt out of the medicaid expansion. in fact, washington democrats have argued that the expansion is a good deal for states since the federal government is paying for the entire expansion through 2017 and then it will cover 90% of the cost of the states. but, again, that's not of all the people on medicaid, that's only of newly eligible individuals. never mind the congressional budget office predicted the expansion would cost the federal

government over $900 billion between 2014 and 2022. apparently washington democrats, who have not passed a budget -- members of this senate have not passed a budget in over three years -- they believe that the federal government has extra money to spend. completely irresponsible. well, this might be a laughing matter for the white house, people who work in state governments take this issue issue much more seriously. the concerns of governors of both parties was highlighted in a "washington post" article. not only a republican -- are republican governors concerned about the expansion but at least seven democrat governors have been noncommittal about expanding the program in their own states as well. now, governors are concerned because they know that medicaid has been the fastest growing part of state budget for over the past decade. in fact, medicaid spending has expanded twice as fast, twice

as fast as spending on education and this is according to the bipartisan national governors' association. in addition, state leaders worry that the federal government will not keep the promises that washington has made to the states regarding medicaid's payment rates. "the wall street journal" referred to the matching rate this way. they say this 100% matching rate is like a subprime loan with a teaser rate and a balloon payment. let me repeat. "the wall street journal" referred to the matching rate this way: the 100% matching rate is like a subprime loan with a teaser rate and a balloon payment. when asked to comment about the medicaid expansion, jay nixon, the governor of missouri, a democrat, said this deals with hundreds of thousands of missourians. it deals with their health care, deals with billions of dollars and we will be involved in the process that defines the

best fit for our states and respects the sovereignty of our state and the individuals of our state. brian schweitzer, a democrat governor of montana put it best when he said unlike the federal government, montana just can't print money. we have a budget surplus and we're going to keep it that way. so unlike this current administration, governors of both parties recognize the importance of controlling government spending. washington cannot expect states to simply trust that the money will come through in the future. states basically don't trust washington, and they are right to not trust washington. states and governors across the country are much smarter than trusting washington. it didn't have to be that way. if the white house and democrats in congress had actually focused on lowering cost, that was the supposed to be the concern of

the health care law, lowering the cost of caring. and if the white house and democrats in congress had actually focused on lowering the cost of care, states now wouldn't be facing this bad choice. we need to repeal this bad health care law. we need to replace it with legislation that will make it easier for states to work with washington without going bankrupt. we need to move forward, we need to move forward with legislation that will allow americans to get what they've been looking for, which is the care that they need from a doctor that they choose at lower costs. and i would point out, mr. president, that the republican governors association had a lot of questions about this medicaid expansion. as a matter of fact, virginia governor bob mcdonald chairman of the republican governors association sent a letter to the president seeking enters to a number of questions -- answers to a number of questions dealing with medicaid and dealing with

the exchanges that are part of this health care law. there are 30 specific questions in the letter that governor mcdonald has sent, and i would suggest that possibly the president hasn't knot of these -- thought of these things, hasn't thought of these issues as they relate to the health care law and doesn't have answers. but these are answers that governors of both parties continue to seek because they want to know what the impact of this medicaid expansion is going to be on their own states and their own budgets. so the health care law may not be unconstitutional. it continues to be unworkable, it continues to be unaffordable and it continues to be unpopular. how unpopular is it? in a poll done just after the supreme court ruling just last week, the july 9 to july 12 gallup poll, they focused on

the independents and that what they've shown is of independents -- of independents in this country, how they think that this health care law will affect different components of our society. they think that it will actually make things worse for doctors, make things worse for people who currently have health insurance, they think it will make things worse for hospitals, they think it will make things worse for businesses, it will make things worse for taxpayers, and most importantly, mr. president, they believe that it will make things worse for them personally. that's where we are today which is why we need to repeal and replace this health care law and my advice to governors around the country would be wait until after the election to decide what you want to do about medicaid expansion because we are continuing to work to repeal and replace this broken health care law. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be -- without objection, the senator from utah is recognized. mr. hatch: thank you. i want to introduce the preserving work for welfare requirements act for 2012. khaeufrpl camp of the -- chairman camp on the house committee of ways and means will

introduce a companion member in the house. this bill halts last week's unprecedented power grab from the obama administration whereby unelected bureaucrats granted themselves authority to grant federal welfare work requirements. unelected bureaucrats bypassed the law passed by congress. they ignored the work requirements intended by congress and by the presidents of both parties who signed welfare reform and its subsequent reauthorizations. ultimately they decided that they knew better than the american people. the american people through their representatives enacted work requirements and welfare reform. but these unelected administrators decided that they did not like these work requirements, so with the stroke of a pen they have attempted to eliminate them. not to put too fine a point on it, but this action is fundamentally illegitimate in a

democratic republic and is the latest example of the obama administration acting without legal warrant and when the law stands in their way. the camp-hatch bill introduced today is cosponsored in the senate by senators grassley, kyl, crapo, roberts, enzi, cornyn, coburn, thune and burr. all valuable and distinguished members of the senate finance committee. this bill includes dispositive findings clearly demonstrating that the obama administration acted outside the scope of the law and the clear intent of congress. i would like to stress the fact that i am introducing this legislation because i believe that the obama administration grossly undermined the constitutional authority of the legislative branch to effect changes instead of law. it does not mean that i believe that the 1996 law is perfect in every way and cannot be improved upon. that could not be further from the truth. a case could be made that due to

prolonged inaction, the tanf programs, the temporary assistance for need yeah families programs, have withered on the vine and now many states see tanf as a funding stream rather than a welfare program. an exception is utah. utah runs a gold standard welfare program which focuses like a laser on work. by work i mean real work as in a paying job, work as most americans define work, not work defined in the "alice in wonderland" world of tanf. utah would like some relief, and i think a lost other states in addition to utah would like some relief he from a number of administration procedures in order to focus more on moving welfare clients to jobs. this is a very reasonable proposition, especially if combined with a robust

evaluation of the success of moving clients into work. i do not want the introduction of this legislation to prevent the obama administration from bypassing congress to imply that when congress does take up the reauthorization of the tanf program that i will not be open to giving states flexibility in exchange for results. the fact remains that this administration and the democratic-controlled senate could have made welfare reform a priority for several years. they did not. for the administration to be arguing now that the need to give states flexibility under tanf rules is so urgent that they need to bypass congress right this very minute does not pass the laugh test. so, mr. president, i'm going to do everything i can to stop the administration from going forward with its waiver scheme. then we should roll up our sleeves and take a good honest look at how welfare reform has been working for the past 16 years. domestic social policy is rarely permanently settled.

things change. people change. a law that is more than halfway through its second decade can most assuredly be updated and improved. that is why we have reauthorizations. i do not view the preserving work requirements for welfare programs act of 2012 as the end of the debate on how best to get families out of poverty. in fact, i see it as the beginning of what i hope will be a thoughtful and deliberative discussion of these critical issues. finally, mr. president, some in the press have attempted to characterize this debate, which at its heart is one of executive overreach as a standoff between me and my own home state of utah. as they say in the country, that dog just won't hunt. i have consistently supported state flexibility in exchange for measurable outcomes. one of the few pieces of domestic social policy legislation that has actually been enacted during this session of congress, public law 112-34

was authored by me and chairman baucus, or should i say was authored by chairman baucus and me to provide states with waivers to improve outcomes in their child welfare systems. utah has applied for one of these child welfare waivers, and as casey stengall said, you can look it up. mr. president, i worked very hard back in the middle 1990's to get welfare reform passed. we required a work part of that. we said we're going to help you folks, subsidize you, give you help monetarily and otherwise. but at the end of a certain period of time you better have a job. and the work clauses of that bill have helped millions of people to get jobs and have the self-esteem that comes from working and supporting themselves. to have this administration

unilaterally without any congressional authorization modify that work requirement is just plain wrong. frankly, i will be for flexibility in the work requirement. i will be. but i don't consider bed rest work. and you can list 10 or 15 other things that the administration has been talking about that don't qualify for work either. so this is an important issue. i hope the congress will stand up for itself and let this administration know that there's a limit to what we're going to tolerate from an executive order standpoint. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll of the senate. quorum call:

mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, ask consent to speak as if in

morning business -- the presiding officer: we are still in a quorum call. mr. alexander: i ask consent to vitiate the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: i ask consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. alexander: i thank you, mr. president. could you please let me know when there are a couple of minutes remaining? the presiding officer: the chair will so advise. mr. alexander: thank you very much. mr. president, earlier this year i came to the floor with a group of republican and democratic senators to congratulate the majority leader, senator reid, and the republican leader, senator mcconnell, as well as the leaders of the appropriations committee, senators inouye and cochran. and the reason for that congratulations was this: they had said that they were going to do their best to bring all of the appropriations bills to the floor and pass them. now, that may not seem like such a monumental pledge or promise, but it in fact is, because only twice since the year 2000 has

the united states senate ever gone through the whole process of bringing all 12 appropriations bills to the senate floor and enacting them in time for the beginning of the fiscal year october 1. why is that so important? well, we're in the midst of a fiscal crisis. we're borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar we spend. one way to deal with that is through the appropriations process. that's our first constitutional responsibility. judges judge. we appropriate. that's the first thing we do. we have control of the people's money, and the aopenings pros bills i'm -- and the appropriations bills i'm talking about, the 12 of them together, constitute a pretty big number. more than a third, 36%-37% of all the money we spend in the federal government goes through those bills. so it is not chump change.

so when the majority leader and minority leader said, yes, we're going to do our best to bring the appropriations bills to the floor, i thought the senate would take an important step in functioning in the way the american people expect the senate to function. that is, to get about the serious business of this country. so as in the world's of the australian foreign minister we can show the people that we recognize we're only one budget agreement away from reasserting america's preeminence in the world. we have that within our power. the economy of the country, the economy of our countries depends to a great extend upon our ability to govern ourselves properly. so i was very encouraged when the majority leader and the republican leader said, yes, we're going to do our best to bring all 12 of those bills to the floor. so, mr. president, i regret to say i'm equally disappointed

that the majority leader has suddenly announced last week that he won't bring any appropriations bills to the floor. and the reasons he gives are very puzzling to me. first he says, well, the house is using a different number than the senate. well, mr. president, what is so new about that? that's why we have the house and the senate. they're one kind of body. we're another kind. they have their opinion. we have ours. and we vote on our opinions, and then we have a procedure called "the conference," in which we come together and we get a result. now, we've had so few conferences lately that maybe some people have forgotten we do that. but we have a way to do it. then the majority leader said, well, they in the house violated the budget control act. mr. president, the budget control act was something we agreed on. i voted for it to try to put some limits on the growth of the

appropriations process in the budget. and if we stick to that over the next ten years, the discretionary spending -- not the two-thirds of the budget that's entitlement, but this one-third we're talking about -- will only grow at the rate of about inflation, plus a little bit more. if our whole budget grew at that rate, we wouldn't have a fiscal problem. so those aren't -- those aren't good reasons. we have a way to reconcile our differences. the budget control act was only limits. the senate actually has exceeded those limits, according to my colleague, senator corker, already three times this year. so there is no excuse whatsoever, mr. president, for not bringing up appropriations bills on the floor of the senate. if you think the solyndra loan was a bad idea, that's the place to take it out. or if you want to spend more money for national defense, that's the place to put it in. or if you think we're wasting money on national parks or too much government land, that's the place to take it out. are those bills ready to come to

the floor? yes, they are, mr. president. in the senate we've been doing our job in our committee. i want to be exactly right about this, but i believe we have seven of our bills -- actually, we have nine -- seven appropriations bills that are ready to come to the floor, ready to go to work right now. and the house of representatives has already passed 11 of the 12 through committee and six of those are ready to come to the floor. so this month we could be debating any of those appropriations bills. we could have amendment after amendment after amendment. we could reduce our spending. we could increase our spending. we can say to the american people we're doing our job, which brings me to my second disappointment, mr. president. i was greatly encouraged this year -- and a lot of credit goes to senators on the democratic side as well as some on our

side, who are say, wait a minute ... you know, we're grownups. we recognize that we're political accidents. we've been given the privilege of serving the people of our state and swearing an oath to the constitution of the united states so that we can help lead this country. and so weedlike to go to work. weedlike to go to work. and what does the senate do in the senate brings bills you were through committee. it puts bills on the floor. then as the late-senator byrd used to say, almost any amendment comes to the floor and we debate it and we vote on it and we either pass the bill or we don't pass the bill. that's what the senate does. and we on our side have been saying to the majority leader, mr. majority leader, let us offer our amendments. don't silence the voices of the people in our states that we represent. and he has been allowing that more to happen. of course he has the procedural ability to stop that. and the senator from michigan

said, let's try just having relevant amendments. and so we said, okay, let's just try that. and so we began to make some progress. there was a dispute over district judges. we resolved that and we've been confirming them. the postal service bill, the farm bill, the f.d.a. bill, the highway bill -- these are all important pieces of legislation that affect almost every american family, what did we do? they went through the committee. they have the expertise of the members that work on those committees. they came to the floor. we had a lot of amendments. we voted on them and they were passed by the united states senate. in other words, we did what we should do. i thought we were on a lot better track until the last two or three weeks, and suddenly what's happened? suddenly, all that ends. and we revert to political exercises, little bills of no real importance compared to the bills we should be debating -- a jobs bill, a disclose act bill,

loans, the bill we're about to go to that the other senator from michigan is proposing. the problem with those bills is they have not been through committee. they're not going to pass the house. everybody knows that. so we're wasting our time at a time, mr. president, we could be debating all of the appropriations bills of the united states government, at a time when the united states government is borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar we spend. we're not even going to do our job and consider those bills on the floor and amend them. what will the whole world think? what will our constituents think about our ability to govern ourselves if we can't pass -- even consider an appropriations bill in the united states senate? on top of that, we haven't had a budget for over 1,000 days. i remember when secretary of state condoleezza rice came back and met with a group of senators, she came back from iraq early after their government was formed and she said, you know, they can't -- they can't even get a budget over there in iraq.

and senators looked around at each other and, here we've been a republic for a long time and we can't get one either. so i'm disappointed that after such a promising surge of activity that was bipartisan and that got results, we've suddenly reverted back to forgetting that -- forgetting that we have a way to deal with business. and it's not because we don't have anything to do. where's the cybersecurity bill? where's the defense authorization bill? where are the appropriations bills, mr. president? they're all ready to be considered, at a time when we're in a fiscal crisis, looking at a fiscal cliff, which if we don't solve will plunge use in a recession in the first six months of 2013. those are the stakes we're playing with. and then there's a third area in which i must express my severe

disappointment. we worked hard at the beginning of this congress to accommodate a number of senators who felt we needed changes in the rules and we made some changes. but we preserved the senate's integrity as a different sort of institution, as place where 51 votes -- the party that has 51 votes doesn't run over anybody else. alexis de tocqueville said the two greatest problems he foresaw with democracy were, one, russia, and, two, the tyranny of the majority. in the united states senate, as senator byrd used to so eloquently say, is the single-most important institution? our country to protect minority rights and minority view. sometimes we're in the minority on this side and you'll notice there are some fewer desks. then after the election, maybe more people vote for democrats

and they come in and they pick up the desks and they move them over to that said. and whichever side is in the minority in the senate still has rights. and it -- those aren't just the rights of the senators themselves. they're the rights to speak the voices of the people of tennessee or maryland or nevada or new york or kentucky. it's those voice that is need to be heard on the floor of the united states national and when we can't debate, offer amendments or vote, those voices are silenced. so to my great surprise, the majority leader, who had done -- and as i said, came to the floor more than once to compliment him for this -- said at the beginning of this congress that he wouldn't seek to change the rules of the senate except according to the regular order -- except according to the rules of the senate which say you've got to have 67 votes -- that's what the rules say -- and we agreed on that. what that really meant is needed

a change in behavior, not a change in rules, to show that the senate could function. now, last night on television, apparently, the majority leader said that in the next congress he had changed his mind, that if he's the majority leader, that he will seek to change the rules of the senate by 51 votes. mr. president, that will destroy the united states senate. that will make it no different than the house. i would say to my friends on the other side, if they want to make the senate like the house where a freight train can run through it with 51 votes, they might not like it so much when the freight train is the tea party express, which it could be. republicans could be in control of the united states senate after this session. republicans would could have a president and then where would obamacare be? where would a whole series of things be? there will be a great many senators on the other side who would say, wait a minute, late slow down the train, let's think about what we're doing. that was the original intention

of the founders much this country. the house is majoritarian 51 vote control. in the senate, we stop and think and minority rights are protected. usually that forces us to have a supermajority in order to do anything big, such as the time when finally the civil rights bill was enacted in the 1960's and senator russell who led the civil rights act, he filibustered it. that is why president johnson wrote the bill in the office of republican leader, he wanted bipartisan support. he knew that in the united states senate -- i thank the president and i ask consent for five more minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized. mr. alexander: thank you very much, mr. president. president johnson knew that he had the votes in the 1960's to pass the civil rights act

without republican support, but he had the bill written in the office of senator everett dirksen, the republican leader. i remember, i was a young aide at that time. the senators were in there the aides were in there. when this passed, as i said, senator russell went home to the georgia and said, it is the law of the land. we have to support t now we're coming up on what the chairman of the federal reserve board has called "the fiscal cliff." the fiscal cliff. this is a convergence of big issues, ranging from the debt ceiling to how we pay doctors, to the spiraling out of control entitlements we have, to a need for simple -- simplified tax code, to a need for lower rates. we've been working on this in various ways across party lines for several months. there's a growing consensus that the time to act is after the election.

it will require presidential leadership, whether it is a newly inaugurated president obama or a new president romney. and our job, mr. president, will see that the newly inaugurated president succeeds, whether he is a republican president or a democratic president, because if he does, then our country succeeds. and what are the stakes? the foreign minister of australia put it very well, bob carr, when he said in a speech here -- and he's a great friend of the united states, i've known him for 25 years. he said the united states is one budget agreement away from reasserting its global preeminence, one budget deal away from reasserting our global preeminence. but, mr. president, if we can't even bring up an appropriations bill to debate it, to amend it, to vote on it and to pass it, then we suddenly are dealing with bills that haven't gone to committee that are nothing more

than a political exercise. if we're sitting around in the united states senate with nothing to do, really, of significance here and there is only one person who can bring up issues here, and that's the majority leader, how is that going to convey to the american people that we're capable of governing ourselves? i think it sends a clear message that we are failing to do that. so having expressed my disappointment, i want to express my respect for the majority leader and to say again how much i appreciated the efforts that he made at the beginning of the congress to say that we wouldn't change the rules of this institution except according to the rules, and the effort that he said he would make at the beginning of this year to bring up the appropriations bills and the efforts that he has made to allow more amendments on a whole series of bills this year and say can we not go back to that, even though this is a presidential election year. the stakes are too high.

and as far as voting on amendments, that's why we're here. i mean, why would you join the grand ol' opry if you didn't want to sing? that's why we're here. we're here to express the views of ourselves and of the people we represent to make sure their voice is heard, and then we're here to get results. so i hope my record is a pretty good record of working to get results. i sometimes say to my friends, they will say well, you're being bipartisan. i'm not interested in being bipartisan. i'm interested in results. and i learned in the public schools of maryville, tennessee, how to count, and i know it takes 60 votes to get results, so anything important we do is going to require democrats and republicans. we're going to need a coalition of democrats and republicans, not 51 or 53, 54, no matter who is in charge next year. we're going to need a coalition of 60 or 65 or 70 that will come around some of the most

difficult issues we have had to face in terms of tax reform, in terms of budget reduction, in terms of reining in entitlements, a whole series of issues. we're going to have to remember our pledge to the constitution that we take at the beginning of each six-year term and we're going to have to honor that pledge. so that's the united states senate that i hope to see. that's the united states senate that i'm working to create. i want to create an environment in which the democratic leader and the republican leader can succeed on big issues in helping us put together results on the serious problems. i want to make the australian foreign minister, the great friend of the united states, i want to show him that we can answer his question and that we realize just like he does that we're one budget agreement away from reasserting america's global preeminence and that we in the united states senate are perfectly capable of doing it, and by not bringing up appropriations bills, by reverting to political exercises, leaving off the table

many amendments that need debate, by even suggesting that we would change the nature of the united states senate so a freight train could run through it with 51 votes, none of that encourages confidence in the building of the united states to govern that i think exists. i know my colleagues pretty well. i work hard with people on both sides. i respect them all and their opinions, and i don't question their motives, and it is my personal judgment that 80%, 85% of us on both sides of the aisle want a result on the big fiscal issues and on every other big issue that comes here, and i'd like to do my best to create an environment in which that could happen. i thank the president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i'm here to speak in favor of the bringing american jobs home act, and i want to thank my colleague, senator stabenow, of michigan who understands this issue because in her state of michigan, they almost lost the auto industry. they almost lost the auto industry, and there were those who said let them go bankrupt. and we know who those people

are. we supported our president, we had a majority here that did so, we had tough votes and we said we're not going to be the only industrialized country in the world to not have an auto industry. we looked at it as not only a jobs issue. clearly, it's a jobs issue, but we looked at it as a national security issue as well. so what this bill is about, the bringing american jobs home act, is making sure that we see the words made in america again, we see the words made in america, so that it's not a surprise when we see those words but we say that's right, it's made in america because we have the best work force, the best entrepreneurs in the world, and we need the jobs here. now, what has happened over the

years is that shipping jobs overseas became a trend and a lot of important voices were heard saying well, that's just the way it is. it is not just the way it is. if you have policies in place that incentivize manufacturing and production here, you're not going to lose those jobs. but what happened during these years is that companies got a tax deduction for moving jobs overseas. imagine that. we american taxpayers were subsidizing companies, giving them tax breaks for moving jobs overseas. well, the bringing american jobs home act ends those tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas, and what we do instead is say we will give a 20% tax

credit to companies who move their jobs back from overseas so they get 20% tax credit of their moving expenses. so we stop giving tax incentives to companies who move jobs overseas and we instead give tax incentives to those who bring them back. well, let me tell you the good news. the good news is that there are some companies who are coming back home, and i wanted to highlight a couple of companies in california, simple wave, a company that makes snack bowls from recycled materials relocated its production to union city, california, from china. simple wave chose to complete its manufacturing in america because they said it saves time and allows for greater quality control and flexibility. a co-founder of the company said -- quote -- "our business has grown very quickly and by having the ability to react quickly and

provide just in time manufacturing, that provides the fuel for our growth. knowing that we're contributing to the u.s. economy reshoring effort is a great feeling. listen to that. this is a businessman who says -- quote -- "knowing we are contributing to the u.s. economy reshoring effort is a great feeling, and we are confident that this will in turn provide a better quality product to our customers. so i say to my republican colleagues, i don't know how they're going to vote but they have not been very supportive of this bill. if a businessman feels great because he's bringing jobs home to the u.s., why don't you feel great and do your part and take away tax breaks from companies who ship jobs overseas and give them to companies who bring jobs home? here's another one. light sabre technologies in carlsbad, california. they make emergency lighting for homes. they also moved their

manufacturing back from china. they found that making adjustments to the manufacturing process is easier when the plant is only 30 miles away. as opposed to 12 time zones away. jerry anderson, one of the company's founders, said -- quote -- "if we have an issue in manufacturing in america, we can walk down to the plant floor. we can't do that in china." l.a. observed says manufacturing in the u.s. is 2% to 5% cheaper once he takes into account the time and trouble of outsourcing jobs overseas. so again, i say to my friends, if entrepreneurs like these feel good about bringing jobs home, why are you continuing to support subsidies to companies who move jobs overseas? you know, we're coming out of a

very tough recession, a very tough recession, and we know that we need to create jobs here at home, and i really want to say to the people who may be watching this debate, if there are a few -- i think there might be just a few -- that we have control over this. we know that if we give incentives to companies who ship jobs overseas, their bottom line is going to be changed by that, but if we give incentives to companies to bring jobs back, their bottom line will look much better, and so we have the opportunity with this important bill to move forward and turn things around, turn things around. don't believe when people say oh, it's just the way it is, you know, we're just outsourcing, that's the global marketplace, that's it. if we take that attitude, mr. president, the future here is going to be pretty bleak

because we do have the greatest workers in the world. they can -- they have the best productivity of any workers, the best. so why would we say it's just the way it is? we need to fight for those jobs. we need to fight. we have to stand up to the people who say well, it's just the way it is. it's just the way business is. you know, when somebody tells you that kind of a simple statement, you should question it. it's the way it is for many reasons. one of them is we're giving incentives right now to companies to ship jobs overseas. now, a "wall street journal" survey found that some of our largest corporations cut 2.9 million u.s. jobs over the last decade from america, while hiring 2.4 million people overseas. so they cut jobs here and they created jobs there. so when a politician says to you

i am for job creation, ask him where. we want to hear. we don't want it in other countries at the expense of american workers. we wish all countries well but we have got to take care of america. you know, people talked about the uniforms at the olympics and some said oh, i'm not going to get into that, that's not such a big deal. it's important. it's important that we make a conscious effort for our athletes, that they do have a made in america label. you know, many of us, many of us have had the experience of using as a fundraising tool the sale of t-shirts or purses or shopping bags or hats, and yes,

it takes an effort to find the right place to go, but those can be made in america. and i say it takes a little effort for a good result. as senator reid said, we have people in the textile industry crying for work. so don't just brush it off as a nonissue. it's an important issue. in california, more than 3,400 jobs were lost to outsourcing this year alone, 3,400. from 2000-2010, the u.s. lost 5.7 million manufacturing jobs. but, you know, it isn't just manufacturing, mr. president. science and high-tech jobs, legal and financial services, business operations are being moved overseas as well. we all know we make those calls trying to find out something, whether it's an airline schedule

or any information on a product, and you get the sense that the person is not talking to you from an american city. why on earth would we give incentives to have those jobs created elsewhere? that's what this bill is all about. with 12.7 million unemployed people and only 3.6 million jobs that we have open nationwide, we have to find ways to reverse this trend. and i think senator stabenow has hit on a very good way to start the bringing american jobs home act. it's so easy. we want to say to companies we're for your bringing jobs back to the extent that we will give you an actual tax credit for doing that. it's very, very key. so i hope that we can come

together across the lines that divide us here, these artificial lines, and work together. we've done it in a few occasions. we did it on the highway bill. i'm so pleased we were able to do it then and, mr. president, you were very involved in that. it wasn't easy. this one's easy. you know, the highway bill had 30 different programs in it. we're talking about a very simple premise here, that right now we give tax breaks to companies who ship jobs overseas. we want to end it. enough. it isn't complicated. it's easy. why are my -- why my republican friends can't join hands with us on this one, i really don't understand but i have to say we can do this for the american worker whether they're from california or ohio or texas or arizona or maryland or kentucky, wherever they may be. this is one we can do for the

working people and the entrepreneurs of our nation. so i congratulate senator stabenow. i look forward to voting in favor of the bringing american jobs home act, and i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll of the senate. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask further proceedings on the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, and the leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: 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 qaeda a safe haven, to training the afghan national security forces, and of fulfilling the operational plans of our regional commanders. as important the troops and the

training pipeline and the schoolhouse, the f-35's 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 or not 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 democrats in congress fail to act on the cuts 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. and that's 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, 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 asian 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 qaeda. deploy and equip special operation forces and, of course, seek to deter iran.

and that's why the president should prepare for the possibility of a possible transition of power now and should do so with the same foreside sight 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 assured his duties -- assumed his duties as the secretary of defense. he informed the congress that he would conduct a strategic review

of the department's plans and programs and submit an amended budget later in the year. that document was ultimately provided to the congress in june of 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 and ultimately he ended up staying on as secretary. now, just consider, 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, inexperience pedestrian, untested leader is in charge of north korea, the taliban patiently wait for the united states and nato to withdraw from afghanistan, and al qaeda senior leadership, though weakened and al qaeda 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 qaeda 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, and 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 is being slashed. if you are wounded the funding for the defense health care program and the care you receive will also be cut. and that's why allowing the sequester to go into effect as currently written and as demanded -- demanded -- by the president would break faith with the forces that 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 see quest traition -- sequestration prior to the election. the sequestration 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 afghanistan and iraq and the 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, far different from that required to convince friend and foe alike our presence in asia is significant and sustainable. we must invest in a new generation of war-fighting capability. the president's budget insufficiently funds this new strategy, and that's 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 outpassing -- outpacing those in europe. so 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's 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 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 --

annual -- military spending increases of roughly 12%. and has undertaken a broad-based effort to expand the capabilities of the people's liberation army. both secretary panetta and general demsey have made clear that the ability of our armed forces to execute the new strategy under sequestration would be at risk. as general demsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, has stated, under sequestration, it's coming out of three places -- this is general demsey. coming out of equipment and modernization. that's one. it's coming out of maintenance. and it's coming out of training. and then he said 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. and that's 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 non-defense 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, 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're committed to finding a solution to 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 a sequestration transparency act just today by a vote of 414-2 th-fplt bill is -- 414-2. this bill is modeled after a thune sessions bill. it asks the president, office of management and budget to submit a report to congress on the impact of sequestration on both defense and on defense programs. every single democrat in the house budget committee supported it. every one. will that bill die here 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 election. if they resist this effort to get more information on sequestration out in the open, it is clear they wish congress to be both blind and mute.

when it comes to our national defense. and the fate of those who volunteered to defend us. we need president obama to tell this congress his plan for avoiding this sequester or preventing the gutting of his strategy or responsibly transitioning to a new commander in chief and for keeping faith with the warriors we have sent into combat. and 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. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i would yield to the distinguished majority whip.

mr. durbin: i thank my friend from texas. i ask unanimous consent that when this colloquy is finished with the five republican senators on the floor that i be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, listening to the distinguished republican leader, i'm reminded of that quotation from former secretary of defense robert gates whorbgs said that our -- who said our record of predicting when we will use military force since vietnam is perfect, we've never been right once. we live in a dangerous and unpredictable world. we also know that the global economy is in dire straits in some places worse than others. in europe, relative -- relevant to the national security question, we can no longer depend on our allies or nato allies necessarily to step up and do what they've done

heretofore because they have their own economic and budgetary problems. talking to some of our counterparts in the united kingdom, the british army is cutting -- is being cut by 20%. 20%, because of austerity measures. so at a time when the world continues to be a very dangerous place and whereas secretary gates said we cannot know where the next threat to america or our allies will come from, we're finding the capability to address that threat's reduced because of budgetary cuts and, thus, increasing the risk to not only the united states, but to our allies as well. and i want to make just one point clear. national security is not just one thing on a laundry list of the things that the federal government can or should do. it is number one. it is the ultimate justifition

for the federal government to provide for the safety and security of the american people. and when the federal government treats national security just like any other expense on the government ledger, i think it denigrates the priority that it should be. but i want to say that when i heard the senator from washington the other day speaking at the brookings institute, she made an amazing speech which summarizing -- she suggested that she and her colleagues are prepared to trigger a recession unless this side would agree to raise taxes. and it's not just the expiring tax provisions on december 31 which would be the single largest tax increase in american history. it is this $1.2 trillion sequester that cuts not only into the muscle, but into the

bone of our defense department and our ability to provide for our national security needs. it also has collateral impact on private-sector jobs all across the country. by one estimate it's 91,000 jobs in my state alone. so why we would see our colleagues and the commander in chief himself want to play a game of chicken with our national security and our economy is beyond me. a senator: would the senator from texas yield for a question? mr. cornyn: i will. mr. mcconnell: with regard to the issue of 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? mr. cornyn: mr. president, responding to the question, i don't have an exact number, but i do know that by one estimate as many as a million private-sector jobs would be affected if this sequester goes into effect as currently written. and we made clear under the

leadership of senator mccain, the ranking member of the armed services committee, that we're willing to work with our colleagues to try to change the structure of this sequester. we all believe that federal he spending needs to be cut, but this is something that would, as the republican leader said, secretary panetta admitted would hollow out our national security and would be disastrous. and why the president won't listen to his own secretary of defense is just beyond me. mr. mcconnell: so i would say to the senator from texas, it's not just the impact on the military, which is devastating enough, but the impact on our economy as well. mr. cornyn: i would say to the republican leader, that's exactly right. the consensus appears to be, i remember alice rivlin, former budget director under president clinton, said that if the sequester goes into effect as currently written and this tax increase occurs and roughly the same time we will be in a

recession. and this is the part i really don't understand. i think we all have been around politics enough to know when people act in their own self-interest, but how in the world could this be in the president or his party's self-interest? certainly not in the national interest to see the economy bouncing along on the bottom with slow growth and the threat of a recession going into a national election. it makes no sense to me whatsoever. i know we have other colleagues here from the armed services committee who have something to say about this. but i would just reiterate something the republican leader has said. we stand ready to deal with this issue now sooner rather than later, and to ignore this until after the election creating not only more uncertainty but the inability of our department of defense and our military to provide for the protection and security of the american people is completely irresponsible.

the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: may i say to my colleague, thank you for his important words. and i thank the republican leader for his commitment. i'd also like to point out the senator from alabama, the ranking member on the budget committee, had some very interesting statistics that i would hope that in the course of our colloquy he could talk about. how america's defending -- spending on defense has decreased over the years and how the draconian effects on national defense will be in the case of the implementation of the sequester on our defense spending and the security of our nation. and i don't think we should consider this -- we need to discuss this issue in the context of the secretary of defense, the administration's

secretary of defense who says if these sequestration is implemented, it will place our national security in jeopardy. it will be, in his words, devastating. so i think it's important for the american people and our colleagues to understand that the secretary of defense -- not john mccain, not senator sessions, not any of my republican colleagues on this side of the aisle. but the secretary of defense says it will be devastating. we live in a dangerous world. we live in a very dangerous world. and if we cut defense the way that this sequestration is headed, then there is no doubt we will have the smallest navy and air force in history. we will have less ships than we've had since before world war ii. it will be a hollow force. and i would just like to make one other comment as my friends join me. what is our country's greatest obligation? what is our number-one obligation? both the administration and

congress. and that is to ensure the security of our nation. that takes priority over every other item on our agenda. so when we start talking about sequestration, that is important in its effect. but i also think it's entirely proper, in fact it should be our priority to talk about sequestration's effect on our defense. and i would like to point out, all of my colleagues here know we are facing reductions if defense. we already had $87 billion implemented by secretary gates, another $400 billion has been implemented f. -- if we implement this sequestration it will be over $400 billion. so far the president of the united states has been completely m.i.a. and we need to

work this out so we can avoid so we can avoid draconian cuts, not to mention what the senator from alabama has talked about, the effect on our economy, the effect on our economy of over -- over a million jobs lost, a reduction in our g.d.p. so this is an important discussion. this is a very important debate, and if someone disagrees with our assessment and that of the secretary of defense, then i will be glad to listen to their arguments. but until then, i will take the word of the secretary of defense that this implementation of defense sequestration will put our nation in jeopardy. i would ask my -- mr. sessions: well, senator mccain, would you yield for a question? mr. mccain: yes. session just from your perspective -- you have been our this committee for a long time, you've served in the military. you're the ranking republican on the committee. in your judgment, based on the

observations that we have -- and i know you openly and aggressively condemn waste and abuse in the defense department -- but do you think the defense department can maintain its view -- maintain its responsibilities with this cut? mr. mccain: well, i'd just respond to my friend, i don't think that in the dangerous world we live in we can afford to have the smallest air force in history, the smallest navy since before world war ii, the smallest army since before world war ii either. but, most importantly, we have to continue to modernize. we have to continue to invest, as my friend from alabama knows. and fact is that we have a crisis with iran, we have a rising challenge with increasing activities of china, we have an unsettled north africa, we have an arab spring going on all over

the middle east. all of these present a compelling argument for us to be compared to meet contingencies. if we were having this debate a year and a half going, then with all the power in libya, egypt, and there would not be a bloody civil war taking place in syria. so where would web we be, i asky friend?, a year, a year and a half from now? i don't know. but it seems to me that for us to be cutting defense in this fashion, that we cannot afford to do that. mr. sessions: well, i value your judgment, senator mccain, because you've been engage i had in these debates for many, many years. i'll yield to my colleague, but first i would ask unanimous consent that my defense fellow commander jeff bennett to have the full privileges for debate on sequestration and consideration of the defense authorization bill and the defense appropriations bill. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. sessions: mr. president, i know senator inhofe would want to share his thoughts at this time. mr. inhofe: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: a lot has been said and those of us who serve on the armed services committee have been watching what's going on with a lot of distress. i think it is important for us to understand how we got into this mess to start with. by his own budget, we have a president who has given us over $1 trillion of deficit each year for four years totaling $5.3 trillion. so that's the mess that we're in, that we're trying to get out of. but that you will time the ones that have not been properly funded has been the military. the first budget that he had, he cut out the f-22 and all the systems that were so important, and it's gone downhill since then. as you project the president's budget out, we're talking about reducing about a half trillion dollars.

now comes sequestration. that's over and over -- a lot of people think we're just talking about the half trillio trillions that's going to be cut over a period of time. why -- and i'll use one of the charts -- actually it was put together by the senator from alabama -- that shows where this stuff is coming from. everything seems to be exempt except the military. food stamps, exempt, 100% of it. medicaid, 30% of it. and only 10% of the d.o.d. budget. the only other thing i want to mention is this: i have every reason to believe that the president is trying to get them to avoid sending pink slips out until after the november 7 election. i would remind him that we have something called the workers adjustment, restraining and notification act, the warn act,

that requires these workers prior to sequestration on january 2 or, to notify people of their pink slips. they don't have to wait. it can't be just -- if they want to do it today, they can do ter i think it is imperative that the people, the workers who are going to be laid off work as a result of the obama sequestration, that they know in advance of the november election that we're going to do everything we can to make sure that that happens. i would yield the floor. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: senator inhofe referred to this chart, and i've now just had it brought over. this is something we prepared. and it dispels a myth that the reason this government is running such huge deficits is surges in military spending. that is an inaccurate event. the base defense budget from

2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 increased about 10%. medicaid, during this same time, increased 37%. food stamps during this same four-year period doubled, i 100% increase. under this sequester, food stamps and medicaid gets not a dime of cuts. it is disproportionately targeted at the defense department. the defense department has taken a $487 billion under the b.c.a. that's why it's gone from belt tightening and efficiency producing to damage to the defense department. well, senator mccain asked that we look at this chart.

this, again, shows what would happen under the sequester. our budget staff has worked hard to correctly do the numbers. under the sequester, the additional $492 billion in cuts, adjusted for inflation, the defense budget over ten years would be reduced by a real 11%. that's one-sixth of the federal government spending is defense. the remaining five-sixths of the government would increase 35% under the sequestration and current b.c.a. policy. so again i think that's clear proof that the defense department is disproportionately being asked to reduce. all right, senator mccain, how about another one? he likes my charts. how about the 50-year switch. it's really so dramatic, and we need to -- americans are going to adjust to this. i wish it were not so.

i wish i could tell you more optimistically about our financial future and the ease with which we can get ourselves on the right track. it is not gimmick t going to be. this chart indicates that. in 1963 defense made up 48% of the outlays of the united states. 48% in 1963. not in the height of vietnam or the korean war or anything. and the entitlements of america amounted to 26% of the budget. what has happened in 50 years in entitlements now reach 60% of the budget, and defense department is at 19% of the bucket. -- of the budget. now, this is a dramatic alteration of where we are and some of this is normal and narcs but i think what senator mccain is saying is that defending america is a core function of government. and we need to be sure that this

alteration does not put news the position where -- put us in the position where america is not properly defended. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i would say to my colleagues that are here on the floor that this really is a defining moment for for our country. the most important responsibility is to defend the country. if we don't get national security right, the rest is conversation. we can talk about all these other things in the budget, we can talk about all the other priorities the country harks all of which are important, but if we fail to defend the united states of america, we have failed the citizens of this country. it is the number-one priority that we have. it is the most important responsibility and obligation we have as public servants here in the united states senate to make sure that we are taking the steps that are necessary to keep this country strong and secure from threats both here at home and abroad.

now, the -- what happened is -- and really where we got to where we are today -- goes back to the fact that we haven't passed a budget for three years in the united states senate. i know -- i need to remind my colleagues why we are where we are today. the reason we are here is for three consecutive years now, the democratic majority in the united states senate has not done the most fundamental responsibility, which is to pass a budget, that addresses our national security interests. so what did we end up with? we ended up with the budget control act, which is something that was cobbled together at the 11th hour to avoid a deadline on raising the debt limit, and we put in place a process where a supercommittee would look at advertise find long-term savings so that we could avoid this sequester. but the sequester was put in place as a result of the budget control act, which was put in place because the united states senate hasn't passed a budget now for three straight years. that is why we are where we're. -- that is why we are where we

are. now, having said that, we need to fix the problem. the problem, mr. president, is that we have defense cuts that are going to cut very deeply into our national security interests. and you have the secretary of defense coming out and saying that these cuts would be devastating. the president's own secretary of defense has made statements to that effect. we'd have the smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest number of ships since 1915, and the smallest tactical air force literally in the history of the air force. that's the dimension of the problem that we are talking about, as has been described by the experts who are supposed to know these things ras i said, the president's own -- as i said, the president's own defense secretary has made these types of statements. one of the problems we have of course is we don't even know what the full impact of thisest sequester will be because the administration hasn't put a plan forward. today the house of representatives voted by 414-2 to require the administration at

least to submit to congress and to the american people how they intend to implement sequestration. so we at least have a better idea about what these impacts will be, where are they going to make the cuts by account so that we can examine that and come up with a plan, hopefully, to replace those deep, unbalanced cuts to the defense budget with reductions elsewhere in the budget. but we won't know that because we can't get the administration to put forward the plan that we need to -- that we need to move forward with our proposals here in order to do away with a very dangerous cut to america's national security. so, mr. president, i hope that the united states senate will do something to address that by starting at least -- at least with requiring the administration, as the house did, take up the bill paves passed -- that was passed in the housees and at least require a plan as to how they are real estate going to implement this

sequester. i would already say, as has been pointed out by the senator from alabama and others, that we're talking about basically a 50% cut in the defense budget or 50% of the cuts coming out of the defense budget on top of $487 billion in cuts that were already approved last year. so we're talking about another huge amount of reductions up to about another half a trillion dollars on top of what already is a half a trillion dollars of cuts that came loft year. and,remember, that the defense budget only represents now 20% of all federal spending. so we're going to take half the cuts out of 20% of the budget. where's the proportionality in that? what we've done essentially -- and the senator from alabama has highlighted this -- is we have shielded many areas of the budget so that a lot of the things that some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to see cut are protected from this. but we're going to make huge, steep, draconian and dangerous

cuts in america's national security military and national security budget. so i would hope that we can at least act on what the house of representatives did today by a 414-2 vote, pick that up legislation, require the administration to tell us how they're going to implement these reductions and then let's go to work ton a bipartisan basis here to try and come up with a plan whereby we can avoid what will be a disaster as has been described by every national security expert out there for our national security interests. we any a dangerous world. i would can't avoid that. the united states of america is looked to for leadership around the world. we have to continue to ensure that we can protect this country and america's interests around the world. in order to do that, we have to make sure that our military is resourced in a way that enables them to protect our interests. we cannot continue to go forward with this sequester, which would dramatically and in a very dangerous way harm those national security interests. mr. sessions: senator thune,

would you yield? i believe we're in a colloquy situation, so would don't -- i would ask unanimous consent that we be allowed to continue to proceed or to proceed as if in a colloquy so that we can address one another. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: senator thune, you're in the leadership on the republican side, you're on the budget committee and the defense committee, and you are aware of how this all happened. so we're at a point where it appears to me that the defense department is being asked to take unacceptable, disproportionate reductions in spending that go so far as to create damage rather than improving its efficiency. so you are aware and isn't it true that the secretary of defense and all the officials,

top officials in the secretary of defense are appointed by the president and serve at his pleasure? mr. thune: that is correct. mr. sessions: and the secretary of defense has said this would be a disaster for the defense department for these cuts to take effect. and isn't it true that the president is a commander in chief of all of our military forces? mr. thune: that is correct. mr. sessions: and isn't it true that we are at a situation at this point in history where we are heading toward a sequester and the commander in chief is utterly silent on how to fix the problem? mr. thune: the senator from alabama is correct. and that is one of the more remarkable things about this. the commander in chief, of course, is tasked with the responsibility of being just that, the commander in chief, and yet when it comes to the national security interests that we have and to at least spelling

out how he would implement what we believe are going to be some disastrous cuts to the defense budget, he is not even informing us about what his ideas are with respect to that so we can react to that. and more importantly, he doesn't seem to be the least bit interested in addressing this. and i think that's -- there is a huge silence coming out of the white house. the senator from alabama is exactly right. that's got to change. that's got to change if we're going to be able to fix this. it starts by at least him presenting a plan and you and i have introduced legislation in the house -- or in the senate that would require that, much like what passed in the house today, and that's where it all starts. mr. sessions: thank you for your leadership. joining with you on similar legislation to that in the house. but isn't it true that we agreed last august with the budget control act to reduce spending over ten years by $2.1 trillion,

that's reduce $45 trillion, and now we -- and there were no tax increases involved in that, and now we are discovering that that late-minute deal has disproportionately impacted the defense department as the president's own secretary of defense acknowledges, and should not we be able to expect that the president would enter into the discussions about how to deal with it? and does it not seem to you, as an experienced part of the leadership in this senate, that the president is saying you republicans care about the defense department, you republicans care about preserving america, but i'm not going to do it unless you agree to my tax increases? i'm not going to do, as commander in chief what i ought to be doing and providing the leadership on because i'm going

to use this as leverage against you guys to force you to agree to a tax increase? is that the way you at the bottom line -- i hate to be so frank about it, but that's the way i feel that it's sort of developing. am i wrong about that? mr. thune: i don't think you're wrong at all. in fact, that's what much of the news stories that have been printed here just in the last few days and the reporting on this subject has said, that the -- some of our colleagues on the other side have essentially concluded that this is leverage, leverage for them to get higher taxes. it strikes me at least that there is a tremendous risk associated with allowing the country to go over a fiscal cliff which includes not only these draconian cuts in the defense budget but also tax increases that would occur on january 1, to go over the fiscal cliff, risk plunging the country into a recession, raise the unemployment rate which is already at a historically high level, all to prove a point about raising taxes.

but that appears to be, at least by the reporting -- there was a story in "the washington post" over the weekend which said democrats threaten to -- threaten the fiscal cliff, going over the fiscal cliff basically to get higher taxes out of the republicans. that to me seems like a terrible trade to make to risk the country going into a recession, to risk these tremendous cuts in our national security priorities, just simply so that they can get higher taxes. mr. sessions: i thank senate. i would just say this. i'm so glad my colleague, senator ayotte, is here. one thing more i would say about it is the agreement last august was to raise the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion and to reduce spending over ten years $2.1 trillion. it did not include a tax increase, so what we are saying is we need to simply reorganize how all those cuts fell so that they are more realistic and the

government is not so damaged, and we don't need to have agency after agency totally exempt from any cuts. senator ayotte, we're glad to have you here. she is a new member of the armed services committee and the budget committee. she is a fabulous new addition to the senate. her husband is a military officer and has contributed greatly to our discussion. thank you very much. ms. ayotte: thank you so much. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. thank you, senator sessions. i appreciate your leadership as the ranking member on the budget committee and also as a senior member of the armed services committee. and this is really so troubling where we are right now with respect to our department of defense, our military, the most important constitutional function we have as a government

to make sure that the american people are safe, and essentially where we are, the budget control act, as has been described, endangered speciesly has cut $487 billion from our military over the next ten years, but on top of that, there are across-the-board cuts coming in january, and i think, number one, the lesson we learned from the budget control act is when you kick the can down the road and you don't make the decisions right away, we're delegated to some other committee to make the decisions, when you don't do a budget in three years, here's where we are. so we owe it to the american people to make the decisions that need to be made now, and it is irresponsible to put our department of defense and our military, our men and women who have fought so bravely for this country at risk because somehow there are members who think that

it's important to play roulette with this, to play chicken with our national security, and this isn't from the senator from new hampshire. just listen why -- to our own secretary of defense on this. he has described what is coming with these across-the-board cuts in january as devastating, catastrophic, would lead to a hollow force incapable of sustaining the missions of the department of defense. he's compared sequestration or these across-the-board cuts to shooting ourselves in the head, inflicting severe damage to our national security and to the point that the senator from alabama made as well as the senator from south dakota, which is the president who is the commander in chief of this country. i would call upon him, mr. president, lead an effort here to resolve this. we can come up with alternative

spending reductions. yes, we need to cut spending and i will be the first to stand in line to say we need to make sure that we make those spending cuts, but let's not do it at the sake of our military, and, mr. president, if you don't want to listen to me, the senator from new hampshire, please listen to your own secretary of defense and make sure that we do not undermine our national security. i serve as the ranking republican on the readiness subcommittee, and i asked the assistant commandant of the marine corps what's the impact on the marine corps from these across-the-board meat ax cuts that are coming in january to our military? well, mr. speaker the marine corps under the initial reductions is going to be reduced $20,000. if this goes forward, this irresponsible way of treating our military and our department of defense, the marine corps will take another $18,000 reduction, and the assistant

commandant of the marine corps said the most shocking thing to me. it's actually something that keeps me up at night. that is he said the marine corps will be incapable of responding to one single major contingency. think about it. think about it in terms of protecting our country. that's why it's so important that we resolve this now. it is my hope that members from the other side of the aisle will come to the table now to put -- table now. to put it in perspective, we could resolve and find spending reductions to deal with not only the defense but the nondefense part of these across-the-board cuts by living within our means for one month within this government. it's $109 million, and we need to do this for the american people so that people like the sergeant in the marine corps, our men and women in our forces

of every branch of the service are so astounding in their courage. just one example, there was a sergeant in the marine corps who lost his leg in afghanistan and he took a year to recover, and with a prosthetic leg, he re-enlisted, he actually redeployed in the marine corps. those are the type of men and women that we owe it to them that they don't just get pink slips because we aren't showing the courage that needs to be showed right here in the united states senate to come up with the spending reductions that don't put our country at risk. and our commander in chief should be leading that effort, and unfortunately all we have seen so far from the president is punting this issue. so i would call upon him and members of both sides of the aisle to come together to resolve this. and we should resolve this

before the election. if we wait until after the election, then our department of defense is going to be under this cloud of uncertainty. our men and women in uniform need to know that we will not break faith with them, that we will stand with them, that we're not going to use them as a political football for other issues here because on a bipartisan basis we should stand with them, with our national security, and in addition, one of the reasons we should resolve this before the election is it's not just about the safety of our country, which should come first and foremost, but we're also talking about nearly a million jobs in the private sector in our defense industrial base, based on a report from a.i.a. and george mason university. just looking at the defense end, a million jobs, and those jobs are the manufacturers both large

and small that build the equipment, the protection, the weapons system that our men and women in uniform need to fight the wars that we ask them to, to keep them safe and protected, and if we lose that capacity, not only do we lose the jobs that are good jobs in this country, but we also lose capacity, which is very much a part of the defense of this nation. under federal law, these companies will be required to issue under the warrant act notices of layoff, potential layoff, 60 days before it happens, which brings us to november. so that's why we need to address this before the election as well. we should not put all those americans who work for those companies and those companies at risk. now, yesterday i -- a.i.a. also issued a report looking at the nondefense implications of sequestration. if you put it all together, it's over two million jobs in this

country that are at issue. so we should get to the table right now, resolve this, cut this spending in a responsible way that doesn't add a national security crisis to our fiscal crisis. we can do it, but we aren't going to do it if we continue to put off the difficult decisions, if we kick this can down the road again, if we use this as roulette or chicken in some other debate in december, this needs to be resolved right now for our men and women in uniform who have shown the courage, the tenacity and the love of country that they deserve, that they have done so much for us and they deserve better from us than to put them in -- as political football in some other debate. so i urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to come to the table now. i urge the president to come and lead this effort so that we can resolve this on behalf of the american people. i yield my time to the senator

from alabama. mr. sessions: thank you, senator ayotte. you're really making a great series of points and one of the most dramatic is we should not be waiting. this is going to cost the defense department tremendous amounts of money, private contractors who may assess against the department of defense costs for confusion and delays. i just want to wrap up with these three charts. one of the myths is the united states is running the largest deficits in its history is the war, the afghan and iraqi war. we ran the numbers on that. the war outlays represent only 4% of defense spending. that's a lot, but it's only 4%. it's not the biggest part if -- part of it. 2001 through 2011 that's how

much it totaled. it totaled $1.1 trillion during that time. 2001 through 2011, we spent $1.1 trillion on both wars in iraq and afghanistan. during that same time, this represents the rest -- the red represents the remaining expenditures of the united states government, 96%. it's just not so that defense and the war have caused the deficit we're in. and indeed last year our deficit was about $1.3 trillion. the entire ten years of war effort amount to less than one year's deficit last year. in fact, we've averaged over $1.2 trillion for the last four years in deficits. you could eliminate the entire defense department, all $540 billion of it, you would not

cut the deficit in half. you can add the war cost to it which is a little over a hundred billion and it's still less than half. so it's just not so that the reason this country is in financial trouble is that. there are other factors that are going on there. from 2008 through 2010, this shows the growth in spending as a percentage of those budgets. defense department through those three years increased 11%. the nondefense discretionary spending increased 24%. that's more than twice as fast as a rate. so it's not surging defense spending that's driving up the cost of government as much as the increase in the nondefense spending. and one more chart here that

should make us all nervous. this is a congressional budget office estimate of interest costs on the debt that we're now accumulating. we're now at $16 trillion in debt. every penny of that is borrowed money. we have to pay interest on that $16 trillion. we're adding a trillion dollars a year to it. we've added $1.2 trillion plus each year for the past four years. according to the c.b.o., in 2019, just seven years from now, interest will exceed the defense department expenditure. the amount of money we spend servicing the debt that we have run up will exceed the defense department and surge past it. and if we have a situation that could happen like is now happening in europe and interest rates surge faster, that number could be a devastating number to the economy.

it's really a matter of great concern to us. so that's why we have to contain spending. defense department has got to reduce spending. we support the $487 billion in cuts that they're working on today, but the additional 492 is so large that it has -- it does damage to the defense department and actually will cost us money by making rapid reductions in spending in such ways that can't be accommodated in any rational way. so i believe if we work together, get this thing on the right path, be honest with ourselves about how much we can reduce the defense budget without hammering our security, i believe we can work something out before the end of the year. but i tell you, the president is going to have to get engaged. he can't just sit back and think he's going to use this for leverage to raise taxes as

he -- it appears to me he's doing. i know others want to speak. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: for the last hour my friends on the republican side of the aisle have had the floor and they have presented their point of view and i'd like to -- joined by the senator from vermont -- i'd like to spend a few moments if i can reflecting on what they've said and perhaps making observations that disagree with their conclusions. there are some things we agree on. the deficit is a serious national problem. right now we're borrowing 40 cents for every dollar we spend, whether we're spending that dollar on education, student loans, food stamps, missiles, or the paychecks for soldiers. we borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend. no company, no family could survive borrowing 40% of everything they spend. that's a fact.

and so we need to be serious about reducing this deficit. we are confronted, however, with a reality in terms of our economy. since 2008, we've had a weak economy, we've had a recession that has killed off a lot of jobs. we're coming back, but slowly and if we're not careful in the way that we reduce the deficit, we can make it worse. i think everybody agrees with that premise on both sides of the aisle. so we have a massive deficit and we have a weak economy, we have to be careful how we reduce spending and raise revenue in a way that doesn't kill off the recovery. ultimately, you can't have a strong american economy unless you start putting people back to work in larger numbers. i think both sides will agree on that. and here's an area where we start to disagree: how do you aagree -- achieve this? several years ago the majority

leader, senator reid, asked me to serve on the simpson-bowles commission and i sat for over a year listening to testimony about ways to reduce the deficit. at the end of the day i came to a conclusion that came out to be bipartisan. 11 out of the 18 members of the commission voting for it, democrats, republicans, public members. and it basically said this: any honest approach to reducing our deficit puts everything on the table, everything. it puts spending cuts on the table for sure. but it also puts on the table revenue, and entitlements. well, i can tell you there's a great deal of pain in addressing some of these issues. on the republican side of the aisle when you say the word revenue, i wouldn't dare use the word taxes, but when you say the word revenue, they race for the door. on our side of the aisle, when you mention entitlements, my friend from vermont and i and many others share a real concern

about the future of programs like social security, medicare, and medicaid. the basic insurance policy for senior citizens in america, and the safety net for the poor and disabled. so you can understand that this becomes extremely difficult in terms of cutting spending, raising revenue, reducing the deficit and not killing off an economic recovery. what happened last year? last year we faced what's called the debt ceiling. the debt ceiling is a vague term that not many people understand. let me try to put it in simple words if i can. the debt ceiling is america's mortgage. america's mortgage is growing in size, unlike many home mortgages which goes down. america's mortgage is growing because our national debt is growing. and periodically we have to borrow more money to cover what we have spent. so members of the senate on both sides of the aisle who vote for the spending, whether it's for a war or for education or health

care, ultimately know that the day will come when we have to borrow more money to cover the 40% of whatever that expenditure is that we're not raising in revenue. so the debt ceiling came up for us to consider last year, and for the first time, the first time, the republicans in the house and senate said let's default on the national debt. what would happen if you started missing mortgage payments at home? well, after a month or two, somebody might give you a phone call. and then on the third month, you might get a letter from a lawyer. and on the fourth month, you might be in foreclosure proceedings. in other words, you were not a trustworthy borrower and your credit rating was being destroyed by your failure to pay your bills. the same thing would happen to america if we didn't pass the debt ceiling. if we didn't extend our mortgage, if we didn't make our timely payments on our debt. but that was what the republicans threatened.

so in order to get through this crisis, the possibility that our entire economy would shut down over this default on our national debt, we came up with a plan and here's what the plan was: we would create a bipartisan house and senate super committee and we said to that super committee come up with $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next ten years. $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction. we didn't say to the committee how to do it but we told them if you fail, if you fail to come up with this savings of $1.5 trillion over the next ten years, there will be automatic spending cuts, automatic spending cuts called sequestration. and we said specifically what they would be. $600 billion from defense spending, $600 billion from nondefense spending. that was the alternative. reach an agreement, cut the

deficit, or face this automatic penalty. which if heard on -- what you've heard on the floor today are protests of half a dozen republican senators to what we're now facing. you see, the super committee couldn't reach an agreement. there was no agreement because basically the republican side refused to even consider raising revenue, raising taxes on anybody over the next ten years. and so the alternatives were to continue to cut spending or -- and/or cut medicaid and medicare. it broke down. so the automatic spending cuts, sequestration, are now looming, december 31, they're looming as a possibility. the protests on the floor today from republican senators are the possibility of a $600 billion cut in defense spending over the next ten years. $60 billion a year. not an inconsequential cut by any means.

here's what's interesting. i asked for the transcript from the republican senators in describing the sequestration, defense sequestration cut, and every one of them came to the floor to condemn it. and the words that they use in describing it are predictable. devastating, arbitrary, irresponsible. one after the other. that's how they described this. then i asked my staff to please get me a copy of the "roll call,," the roll call of the united states senators who voted for this action. of the senators, republican senators who spoke on the floor this afternoon, protesting the defense sequestration as devastating, irresponsible and arbitrary, the following republican senators voted for it: senator mcconnell of kentucky, senator mccain of arizona, senator thune of south

dakota, senator cornyn of texas. in fact, the entire republican leadership team voted for what they are now branding as devastating, arbitrary and irresponsible. so it's a little hard for me to understand how on this date, august 2, 2011, in the early afternoon, they could vote for this and now come to the floor and condemn it. here's the reality: the reality is we need to deal with our deficit in a responsible fashion. we need to keep this economy moving forward. in order to deal with the deficit in a responsible fashion, i still believe the boobles approach is -- bowles-simpson approach is the right approach. work through it in a responsible way. i thought it was right then, i still believe it is right. i am troubled, though, by this concept about defense spending. now, let me confess my own

personal and family feelings. an hour ago, my nephew, michael kakase in the 10th division in new york came up to see me. he was a sight for sore eyes. a little over a year ago he was a doorman letting people into the gallery upstairs. then he enlisted in the united states army and spent a year in afghanistan. i thought about him every single day. we sent him care packages and got notes back from him and occasional emails and in he walks in my office today, safe and sound. he couldn't have been happier to see him. in just a few weeks he's off to korea. he has two more years in his commitment to the army. i thought about him and think about him and so many others like him every time the issue of america's military and defense come up. while michael and so many others are risking their lives for our country, we can do nothing less than to keep them safe, to give them what they need to come home safely as michael was able to

do. i'm committed to that personally, politically. so to suggest that any of us in either party would jeopardize the defense and security of america for political reasons, i don't accept it.t everyone here is committed to the basic premise of keeping america safe and standing behind our men and women in uniform. but i also want to be realistic about the defense budget. it's a big budget. now, the last time the american budget, federal budget was in balance was about ten years ago. and we hit the sweet spot when it came to taxes and revenue on one side and spending on the other. the sweet spot was 19.6%. 19.6% of our gross domestic product. that's the sum total and value of all the goods and services produced in america. so we raised 19.6% of our gross domestic product in taxes, and

that's how much we spent. we were in balance ten years ago. what has happened since? senator dan inouye, chairman of the senate appropriations committee, told us. since then, since the budget was last in balance, domestic discretionary spending for things like education, health care, correction systems, highways, all the non-defense things in our budget have not grown at all. flat line. zero growth. when it came to the entitlement programs -- medicaid, medicare, veterans programs and the like -- they have gone up about 30% in cost since the budget was last in balance. what about the defense budget? what has happened to the defense budget since we had a balanced budget? it has gone up 73%. zero on domestic discretionary. 30% on entitlements. 73% on the military side. so what happened in the last ten

years? two wars we didn't pay for. a dramatic build-up in the military. and the reality is all of it was added to the debt. when we had the simpson-bowles commission, we brought in experts from the department of defense, asked them a lot of questions about our spending over there. there were some things that are troubling. the f-35, supposed to be the fighter of the future, ends up dramatically overspent. cost overruns in every direction. you may have heard a lot about the solyndra energy project. the cost overruns on the f-35 project are more than ten times the money we lost on the solyndra energy project. so it's been a dramatic overrun in some of these major weapons systems. we then asked the department of defense how many contractors do you have working for you? not civilian employees in the department of defense or uniformed employees. how many do you have? and their answer to us was very

candid: we don't know. we really don't. we hire these contractors. they hire people. we have no idea how many people are working for us. could be a million, could be three million. we're not sure. it raises the question in my mind if we can be safe as a country and still save some money in the department of defense. i think we can. i think we can. what i hear from the republican side of the aisle is keep your hands off the department of defense. i don't want to cut them and jeopardize our security or endanger our service men, but i do believe money can be saved there. how do we find ourselves in this position where we're even considering these cuts? because the republicans have steadfastly refused to consider revenue. before you took the chair, madam president, our colleague and friend, senator merkley of oregon, sent me a note to ask senator sessions of alabama, and i want to read it. he said ask senator sessions the

following: what is more important? taking care of our national security or giving bonus tax breaks of over $100,000 a person for the richest 2% of americans? you see what the president's proposed is that we cut the tax breaks off at $250,000 of income. and it means the top 2% of americans would pay more. they would pay the rate they used to pay under president clinton. and the republicans have said no way. president obama's tax proposal would save us $800 billion. the department of defense cut over ten years is $600 billion. so the republicans here, almost to a person, are basically arguing that rather than raise taxes on the richest 2% in america at all, we would run the risk of jeopardizing our national security. that's false choice. we can have a strong national

defense, and we must. but we can also have a rational approach to reducing our debt. our military is the best in the world. it's the biggest in the world. it is larger than most other nations, the next ten combined, and it's certainly dramatically larger than any potential enemy of the united states. it has kept us safe as a nation, and we want it to continue it to. the men and women are the best who serve us in our military. but we can save money in the department of defense. we can do it and reduce the deficit. what we need from the republican side of the aisle is the willingness that we found in the simpson-bowles commission of a few republicans to step up and say yes. we need to put everything on the table. let's avoid deep cuts either on the domestic side or the defense side. let's basically come up with an approach that is fair across the board. and we can do it. let's spare those who are the most vulnerable in america. the homeless, the helpless. for goodness sakes, we all care for them.

we should care for america's needy. those programs have to be protected. when the senator from alabama comes to the floor and decries the fact that more people are using food stamps, i would say to my friend from vermont, he's probably seeing the same thing i have. meet these families on food stamps. meet them when you go to the soup kitchens and when you go to the food pantries. many of them are working families. they can't make it on what they're being paid. they're struggling paycheck to paycheck. at the end of the month they're looking for something to put on the table. sadly, families that have an income still qualify for food stamps because their income's too small. so the senator from alabama has said the food stamp costs have gone up way too high. true, they are high, but they reflect the state of the economy and the troubling challenges facing working families and poor families across america. he also made a point of saying the entitlement payments are going up dramatically. why? because today in america 10,000

of our fellow citizens reached the age of 65. yesterday the same thing, tomorrow the same thing and for the next 18 years the same thing. the boomers have arrived. when they arrive at age 65, they say well, we paid in all our lives for social security, for medicare. aren't we qualified? aren't we entitled to our benefits? is the senator from alabama suggesting we walk away prosecute those commitments? -- walk away from those commitments? i don't think that's fair. we can make them better programs but we don't want to give up on our commitment to medicare, for example, like the paul ryan budget did. i think that's a serious mistake. my friends on the republican side of the aisle, i think the message is clear. you voted for this, so don't keep coming to the floor and criticizing it. you knew what you were voting for. it said if you failed to reach a bipartisan agreement in the supercommittee, this is what we would face.

secondly, we can solve this problem still. we can avoid sequestration with a bipartisan approach that really considers all the key elements to bring deficit reduction in in a sensible, thoughtful way that doesn't kill our economic recovery. and, third, i will never question any colleague's commitment to the safety and security of this nation, and i hope our friends on the other side won't either. everyone is committed to that, and we're committed to our men and women in uniform. now let's do them proud and make america's economy stronger, make america stronger, invest in things that we know will make us a strong nation in addition to the military. our schools and education, research and innovation, clean energy projects that offer an opportunity for 21st century leadership for america, the infrastructure which serves our country from one side to the other and keeps products moving and keeps america competitive. we can make the investments in these key areas and not jeopardize our national defense. we can still do that and reduce our deficit. madam president, i yield to my

friend and colleague from vermont, senator sanders. mr. sanders: i thank my -- the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i thank my friend, the senator from illinois. before i begin, i want to on behalf of senator merkley to ask unanimous consent for floor privileges for the balance of the day for mia arietta walden. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sanders: i appreciate very much the remarks of the senator from illinois, and i wanted to amplify on them just a little bit. but before i do, i wanted to mention something that we don't talk about enough here on the floor of the senate. you know, madam president, in new england and i'm sure in minnesota we have a lot of sports fans. when you're interested in baseball, basketball or football, hockey, whatever, the key question that everyone always asks is who wins and who loses? who wins and who loses? well, i think it is appropriate that in terms of the economy as

it currently stands, we should also ask that simple question, who's winning and who's losing? and let me discuss that for one moment before i get into deficit reduction. the simple reality is we don't talk about it almost at all here on the floor of the senate. the media doesn't talk about it terribly much. but the reality is that we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth, and more income and wealth inequality in this country than at any time since the late 1920's. today, madam president, the wealthiest 400 people own more wealth than the bottom half of america, about 150 million people. you could squeeze 400 people into this room. they are the wealthiest people in america. they would own more wealth than the bottom half of america. a report just came across my

desk yesterday which i want to share with you and with the american people. and this is really quite incredible and kind of tells us where we are moving as a nation. and that is that today the walton family of wal-mart fame -- the folks who own wal-mart -- one family now owns more wealth than the bottom 40% of america. one family owns more wealth than the bottom 40% of america. madam president, today the top 1% owns 40% of the wealth of the country. i think a lot of people are very surprised by that number. the top 1% owns 40% of the wealth of america. but what people would be far more shocked at is if you ask them how much the bottom 60% of

the american people own. and i have done this in vermont, and i've asked people and they say 10%, 20%. the answer is less than 2%. the top 1% owns 40% of the wealth of america. the bottom 60% owns less than 2%. the bottom 40% of america owns .3%. less than one family, the walton family, own. now why is that important? it's important because it tells us, i think, from both a moral and economic perspective, the direction that we have got to move in terms of deficit reduction. now, i find it a little bit amusing that some of my

republican friends come to the floor of the senate and say we are deficit hawks. we've got to cut, cut, cut. we're worried about our kids, we're worried about our grandchildren, we're worried about borrowing money for china. they're worried about the deficit. i'm worried about the deficit. every american should be worried about the deficit. but i have a question to ask some of my republican friends who today, today are great deficit hawks. and that is: where were they a few years ago? i voted against the war in iraq for a number of reasons, not the least of which is it wasn't paid for. war in afghanistan wasn't paid for. and i find it kind of interesting that former president bush, a great deficit hawk, all my republican friends,

great deficit hawks, they went not just into one war, they went into two wars, madam president. and you know what? it just slipped their mind. they forgot to pay pore it. we all -- they forgot to pay for it. we all have slips of memory. go to the grocery store, you forget to buy the container of milk your wife wanted you to buy. it just slipped their mind. they were so busy talking about the deficit that they went into two wars, cost trillions of dollars and forgot to pay for it. and today they have notice, it has come to their attention that there is a deficit. i voted against the war in iraq. i'm not so sure that many of them did. second issue, madam president, if you go on a shopping spree or a gambling spree or whatever it may be, and you spend a lot of money, give away a lot of money, you have less money. our republican friends fought for and created huge tax breaks

for the wealthiest people in this country. hundreds and hundreds of billions of tax breaks, dollars in tax breaks went to the top 1%, went to the top 2%. so our deficit hawk friends who come down here every day to tell us how concerned they are went into two wars that they forgot to pay for, and for the first time in american history they actually gave tax breaks to the very rich while they were at war furthermore, one of the major problems that our country is facing now in terms of the deficit -- and senator durbin touched on it -- is that because of the recession, which was caused by the greed and recklessness and illegal behavior of wall street -- and many of my republican friends,

and some democrats, told us a while back when i was in the house how important it was to deregulate wall street, to allow the large commercial banks to merge with the investor banks, to merge with the insurance companies and just get the government off the backs of these honorable people on wall street who are lockin looking or the american people. well, it turns out they are a bunch of crooks and we deregulated them and they did what many of us thought they would do. they became involved in incredibly complicated financial transactions which took this country to the verge of an international collapse. and our friends on wall street needed their welfare payment from the middle class of america, $700-and-some billion of a welfare payment for wall street to bail them out and the

fed provided loans on a revolving loan basis. but in the midst of all of that, madam president, what ended up happening is that revenue is now down to 15.8% of g.d.p., which is the lowest amount of revenue per g.d.p. that we have seen in a very, very, very long time. so you go into two wars, you don't pay for them, give tax breaks to billionaires; deregulate wall street, revenue declines aas a percent of g.d.p., and you know what? you have a serious deficit problem, which is where we are right now. i think we have a $1.2 trillion-a-year deficit, serious situation. how do we deal with it? everybody recognizes it is a problem. we don't want the younger generation to have to pick it up. my republican friends say have a

good idea. we went to two wars, didn't pay for it. deregulated wall street. a recession, oh, let's cut social security. that's a good idea. after all, we only have 50-some-odd million people on social security. why don't we come up with a chained c.p.i. nobody outside capitol hill knows what a chained c.p.i. is. if any senior citizen, somebody on securitsocial security, is wg this, lease don't laugh. you'll think i'm not telling you the truth. check it out. i am. yes, there are people here in the senate and in the house who think your colas have been too large, that the formula which determines colas -- coast-of-living increases for seniors -- has been too generous. now what you're saying, is what is this guy talking? how could it be too generous when for the last two years we

didn't get any cola, at a time when our prescription drug costs are going up, our health insurance costs are going up? they are a little bit off their rocker e. the idea that you can think that zero colas are too large and we have to create a new formula to reduce colas, that is what people i are talking about right now. what about social security? how much of the deficit did social security cause? so that my republican friends, all of them, want to cut it some democrats might want to cut it? well, the answer is zero. everybody in america back home understands it because social security is funded by the fica tax, by the payroll tax. social security does not get general fund money; it comes independently. social security, according to

the social security administration, has a $2.7 trillion surplus -- let me say this again -- "surplus" -- can pay out every benefit for the next 22 years. why do they want to cut social security in go ask them. i don't know. certainly doesn't make any sense to me. should not be part of any deficit-reduction effort. but it is not just social security that is under attack. they want to go after medicare. they want to go after medicaid. they want to go after nutrition programs for elderly people and children. they want to go after pell grants. you noe name the program that benefits the working class an ad middle-class families, they go after it. and what about asking the wealthiest people to pay a nickel more in taxes? can't do that. just can't do that. you have billionaires doing phenomenally well, who are now paying the lowest effective tax

rate that they have paid in a very long time. we cannot allow them to pay a nickel more in taxes. far more important to cut social security, medicare, medicaid, and education. well, you know what? i think that that set of priorities is dead wrong, and i think the american people think those priorities are dead wrong. and we've got to work together make sure that that doesn't happen. some kind of grand plan, or whatever it is. yeah, we can deal with deficits -- we should deal with the deficit, but in the on the backs of the elderly. you have millions of senior citizens of this country living on $12,000, $13,000, $14,000 in social security, all or most of their income. and people here are talking about cutting social security? got 50 million people who have no health insurance, got 45,000 people who will die this year because they don't get to a

doctor on time, and people say, let's throw kids off medicaid. let's throw lower-income people off of medicaid. and what happens? what happens i? let's do away, says the ryan budget, the republican budget, let's do away with medicare as we know it. let's give people an $8,000 check instead of medicare. yeah, well, you got ask cancer,u got heart disease and you get a $8,000 check to go out and get private insurance? madam president, how many days do you think you'll stay in a hospital with cancer for $8,000? not a whole long time but that's what their plan is. so we are in the midst now of a great philosophical and economic debate. the rich are getting richer and our republican friends want to give them more tax breaks. the middle class is collapsing, our republican friends want to cut social security, medicare, and medicaid. and in terms of defense spending, i would just say this:

everybody here agrees we want and need are a strong defense. do we really have to spend more on defense in the united states of america than the rest of the world combined? we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. do we really have to do that? we spend 4.8% of our g.d.p. on defense. our european allies, who, by the way, provide health care to all of their people as a right -- our european allies, who provide in many instances college education free to their young people -- not $40,000 or $50,000 a year -- our european allies -- and i say this in all due respect to them; i respect that; that's what we should be doing, providing excellent-quality child care to their working

families, they spend 2% of their g.d.p. on defense. we spend 4.8%. so, madam president, we are in the midst of an interesting moment, and i would hope that the american people become engaged in this debate, because i think, by and large the position that the republican party is taking -- tax breaks for billionaires, cuts in social security and medicare, medicaid -- i think that that is way out of touch with where the american people are today. so, madam president, i hope that we have a serious debate on these issues. i hope the american people join us, and i hope that the route we go, the road we go down in terms of deficit reduction is one that is fair to working families and

the middle class, and that means asking the wealthiest people had this country and the largest corporations in this country to start paying their fair share of taxes. and with that, madam president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.  quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. brown: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. brown: thank you, madam

president. i rise today because of a pending proposal to grant permanent normal trade relations with china must be done right. it was voted out of the finance committee today. there was discussion about further changes in the legislation on the -- on the senate floor when it reaches here. people in my home state of ohio know too well that we can't afford to continue our normal business as usual trade agreements that fail to hold our trading partners responsible. we know what happened in the early 1990's with the north american free trade agreement, we know what happened in the late 1990's with permanent normal trade relations with china. just look at -- look at the most recent events around the united states olympic committee and these american athletes, hundreds and hundreds of them soon to parade down the streets in london, england, wearing clothes made in china.

if that doesn't tell us something about our trade relations with china. we need to do it right because we know what happened in -- not too many years ago with the central american free trade agreement, so-calledcasta, and the -- called cafta, and the american people recognize that. too often, we have allowed companies to violate their trade agreements with detrimental consequences for their own industries especially our manufacturing. between 2000 and 2010, we lost one-third of our manufacturing jobs in this country, more than five million manufacturing jobs disappeared, 60,000 plants closed. that's not by accident that globalization just evolved that way. it was because of trade law and tax law and our country that gave incentives in far too many cases for companies to shut down in the united states and move overseas. we know, madam president, that a large number of -- a number of large american businesses have decided that their business plan

has shut down production in sandusky or hamilton, ohio, and you move production to china and then tell those products back into the united states of america. never to my knowledge in world history has a group of companies, a large number of companies in one country put together a business plan like that. you shut down production of the home be country, you move it overseas, you sell back those products into the home country. it hasn't worked -- by and large, it hasn't worked for our country. it's -- part of the result is a diminished middle class with stagnant wages. that's what we need to make sure we understand as we go with eyes wide open in the pntr with russia. too often, we compromise our values in these trade agreements, we compromise our commitment to upholding human rights. granting russia pntr status without oversight is another such deal in the making. we have a responsibility to american steel makers and welders, the companies and the

workers, the small manufacturers and the employees, engineers, laborers, all of them to get it right this time. i want more trade. this is not just about russia. this is about america's trade policy, america's workers, american job creation. this is about the guy in zanesville, ohio, who made big things with his hands for years and now has gone from $17 an hour to $11 an hour and still has to provide for his family. it's just this simple. enforcement in accountability must be at the heart of our trade commitments with every single country in the world. granting russia pntr -- that's granting russia permanent normal trade relations is important for u.s. businesses. it could be a major step towards boosting exports of machinery, aerospace products and other manufactured goods. i get that, i support that. it could be helpful to ohioans who produce nearly 328 million pounds of chickens. it could be helpful to hog farmers around johnstown, ohio,

and pork producers throughout ohio and throughout the united states. we need to ensure our manufacturers and our ranchers and we need to ensure that our producers are not economically, if you will, madam president, hog-tied by our trading partners. u.s. workers have learned the hard way that promises about strict enforcement simply don't go far enough and are simply too often empty. a decade of experience with china's failure to abide by its world trade organization commitments has provided ample evidence that we must strengthen our enforcement regime. how many senators that voted for permanent normal trade relations with china, how many congressmen and women who voted for permanent normal trade relations with china have come to this floor and complained about china breaking the rules? they have attacked china because china cheats. they have complained to china on the senate floor. they have gone to the international trade commission in saying china is not playing by the rules. yet, they voted for pntr a dozen

years ago, but put that aside, make up for it by voting -- by passing a russia pntr that has real commitments, has real language, not just for reporting language but for enforcement language. after ten years, after hundreds of thousands of american jobs lost, we're saying the same argument we saw for pntr made in support of granting russia w.t.o. membership. our experience with china has shown that we must ensure that our trading partners follow through on their commitments. our workers, our farmers, our ranchers, our producers, our manufacturers should have confidence that if a trade deal is signed, it will actually be enforced. we can't afford another one-way trade agreement because one-way trade agreements tend to lead to one-way job movements, companies shutting down here, manufacturing somewhere else, selling back into the united states. that's why we must have oversight, we must have

mechanisms in place to ensure that russia adheres to its commitments. we must learn from the chinese case. our pntr with china caused huge damage to our country in manufacturing job loss. from the implementation of pntr passed in 1999, begun in 2000, accession to the world trade organization, around then for china, we saw what happened with job loss. i mentioned a minute ago, between 2000 and 2010, we lost one-third of our manufacturing jobs in this country, more than five million jobs. we lost 60,000 plants in this country. not entirely because of china not playing fair, not entirely because of pntr, not even entirely because of pntr with china and the north american free trade agreement. it's our tax law, it's our trade law, it's our unwillingness or inability to enforce these trade rules. all of that is conspired for this job loss. we have since 2010, i might add, madam president, because of the auto rescue and some other

things, we have gained back a half a million manufacturing jobs. ten years of manufacturing job loss since the auto rescue, 500,000 manufacturing job gains. madam president, to make sure -- if we -- we have to have monitoring, we have to have appropriate consequences in place when these rules are violated. if we are to repeat our mistake, if we repeat our mistakes of the past, we'll have no -- from our lessons we should have learned from china, we have no one to blame but ourselves. my bill, the russian world trade organization commitments verification act of 2012 would help ensure russia abides by the schedules set out in its w.t.o. forms. now, russia has said it's going to do a, b, c, d, and e. so did china. we need not only just reporting language about evaluating did they do that, but we need enforcement mechanisms. if they do a and they don't do b, then the administration or

the house or the senate or we individually can begin to bring some actions against russia for not following these rules. we accomplish this by requiring ustr to report to congress annually on how russia is adhering to the commitments it made as part of joining the world trade organization. if russia fails to comply, here's what our language does differently from what we've done in the past, learning from what happened with china, if russia fails to comply, the u.s. trade representative will be required, required, not an optional thing because we see how trade representatives, particularly during the bush years, acted on these kinds of problems. the u.s. trade representative will be required to explain what the administration is doing about it. if the administration does nothing, my bill clarifies that congress can request the administration take action. it's commonsense accountability. it's been lacking our trade enforcement issue. this is an american issue. we can solve it together. we can solve it bipartisanly.

we can solve it because it's an issue in all regions of our country. president reagan once said about russia, we must trust but verify. he was actually talking about the old days with the soviet union. the same applies today, trust but verify. bring the reporting requirements forward, bring accountability forward. it will matter for american jobs, for american manufacturers, for a middle-class standard of living for so many in our country. madam president, i suggest -- i yield the floor to the senator from oklahoma. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: madam president? earlier today, we had a colloquy on this floor talking about the devastating effects of sequestration, and i think we've covered most everything. one of the significant parts of this is how we got here in the first place. not many people realize that in our form of government, the president of the united states, whether he is a democrat or a republican, he comes out with a

budget each year, and of course we have not actually passed a budget in the senate, so that becomes the budget. in his budget starting four years ago, he has had each year in excess of $1 trillion deficit each year. you add them all up, it's $5.3 trillion of deficit. i only mention that in conjunction with the concern that we have on sequestration, is that how did we get here in the first place? this is something that is very much of a concern for us because it seems as if, when you look at all of the increases, the deficit increases during this administration, since 2008, the only area that has not really been dealt with fairly in terms of keeping up with our obligations are national defense. and i'm not too surprised that this happened, but it did. in fact, i can remember going over to -- let me interrupt myself, but it's my understanding i have about 30