John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Fulton, SD. The town of Fulton will commemorate the 125th anniversary of its founding this year. Fulton sits in the northwest section of Hanson County and became a town in June of 1887. Originally part of the Great American Desert, Fulton began as a railroad town during the early days of Dakota Territory. The first settlers in Fulton withstood numerous hardships such as troublesome horse thieves, prairie fires, and the devastating blizzard of October 14, 1880, whose sudden and devastating force tied up the railroad service and marooned every settlement in the area. Fulton prides itself on its excellent pheasant hunting and fertile farmland. The area was described by an early surveyor as ``an attractive place to one seeking a good farm or a pleasant home,'' and Fulton still maintains that appearance today. Fulton has been a successful community for the past 125 years, and I am confident it will continue to serve as an example of South Dakota values and traditions. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Fulton on this landmark occasion and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Eureka, SD. The town of Eureka will commemorate the 125th anniversary of its founding this year. Platted on October 3, 1887, at the ``end of the track,'' Eureka began as a railroad town. As was common in the area, Eureka was founded primarily by Russian-German immigrants, who learned to adapt and survive in the harsh and unsettled State of South Dakota. These steadfast settlers dealt with severe weather from blizzards to droughts. With determination, the settlers built a strong agricultural economy. In the late 1890s, it was often called the Wheat Capital as it was one of the world's largest inland wheat centers. In 1892, more than 3,300 train cars of wheat from 35 elevators and warehouses were exported from Eureka. In 1977, a strain of wheat was even named Eureka in honor of the town. Today Eureka takes pride in its beautiful recreational opportunities and its active and engaged community. Eureka has been a successful community for the past 125 years, and I am confident it will continue to serve as an example of South Dakota values and traditions. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Eureka on this landmark occasion and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Shelby Schoon, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Shelby was home schooled and is a native of Brandon, SD. Currently, she is a graduate of Northwestern College where she majored in business administration and biology health professionals. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Shelby for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Shiloh Day, an intern in my Rapid City, SD, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past couple of months. Shiloh is a graduate of Highmore High School in Highmore, SD. Currently, she is attending the University of South Dakota, where she is majoring in political science. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Shiloh for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Kelly Herrmann, an intern in my Sioux Falls, SD, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Kelly is a graduate of Stevens High School in Rapid City, SD. Currently, she is attending South Dakota State University, where she is majoring in political science. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Kelly for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Rebecca Reiter, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Rebecca is a graduate of Watertown High School in Watertown, SD. Currently, she is attending the University of South Dakota, where she is majoring in political science and criminal justice. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Rebecca for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Kevin Robb, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Kevin is a graduate of St. Thomas More High School in Rapid City, SD. Currently, he is attending the University of South Dakota, where he is majoring in political science and philosophy. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Kevin for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Scott Blanchard, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Scott is a graduate of Aberdeen Central High School in Aberdeen, SD. Currently, he is attending Northern State University, where he is majoring in political science. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Scott for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I rise to express my growing concern as massive tax increases loom on the horizon, and yet the Senate has not taken a single vote to forestall what many are appropriately calling taxmageddon. Washington tends to be a place where people speak in hyperbole, but it is hard to overstate the magnitude of the tax increases that will hit our economy starting next year if we do not act. If Congress does not vote to extend the current income-tax rates, the lower tax rates on investment income, relief from the alternative minimum tax, relief from the Federal estate tax, and other expiring tax relief measures, the result will be a tax increase of more than $470 billion on Americans in 2013 alone. Over the next 10 years this tax increase will result in nearly $4.5 trillion in new taxes on American families and entrepreneurs. This will be the largest tax increase in our Nation's history in absolute dollars and the second largest tax increase since World War II as a percentage of our economy. This massive tax increase does not even take into account the new taxes enacted as part of ObamaCare that will also go into effect in 2013 and that will impose an additional $23 billion in higher taxes on individuals and businesses. What will these taxes mean to the average American family? The Heritage Foundation recently published a study that estimated the increase per tax return in every State. In my State of South Dakota, Heritage estimates that the average tax increase per tax return will be $3,187 in 2013. I would say this to my Democratic friends who generally believe in demand-driven Keynesian economics: The average family in South Dakota can do more to stimulate our economy and create new employment by keeping their $3,187 and spending it as they see fit, not as Washington sees fit to spend it on their behalf. Taxmageddon is an apt description when we consider the impact of these tax increases not just on individual families but on our entire economy. Until recently we could speculate about the impact of these tax increases on our fragile economy, but the magnitude of the damage was not in dispute. Not anymore. Last month, the Congressional Budget Office gave us the most definitive estimate yet of the impact of the nearly $\1/2\ trillion of tax increases in 2013 when combined with the more than $100 billion of spending cuts from the sequester. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the combination of massive tax increases and the sequester will result in real GDP growth in calendar year 2013 of only one-half of 1 percent. The picture is even bleaker when we consider that the Congressional Budget Office also projects that the economy will actually contract by 1.3 percent in the first half of 2013. According to the CBO, such a contraction and output in the first half of 2013 would ``probably be judged to be a recession.'' So let's be clear about what ``taxmageddon'' means. We are not talking about a slight slowdown in growth of a few tenths of a percent. What we are facing is the difference between positive growth on one hand--which will mean more jobs and higher incomes--and a recession on the other hand. How big is the difference in economic growth next year if we act to forestall the pending tax increases versus not doing anything about it? According to the Congressional Budget Office, if Congress acted to remove the tax increases and budget cuts, the growth of real GDP in 2013 would be in the range of 4.4 percent. This sort of robust growth is a far cry from the lackluster economic performance that we have experienced of late. In fact, GDP growth for the first quarter of this year was recently revised downward to just 1.9 percent. This is hardly the magnitude of economic growth necessary to sustain a meaningful recovery that will finally bring the unemployment rate below 8 percent--something the current meager recovery has failed to accomplish. We can, and must, do better. We can start by providing Americans some certainty as to what their taxes are going to be come next year. Fortunately, we learned recently that the House of Representatives intends to hold a vote on legislation to extend the existing tax rate next month. According to statements by House Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor, the House is likely to consider a short-term-- perhaps for 1 year--extension of existing tax rates as a bridge to fundamental tax reform next year. Some may question why we need to vote on an extension of the tax rates now because they assume these tax issues can simply be dealt with as a part of the postelection lameduck session. The answer is that we need a vote now because the delay in extending current tax policy is having a very real impact on our economy today. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office again estimates that the mere possibility of pending tax increases and spending cuts will lower U.S. GDP by one-half of 1 percent in the second half of this year--not next year, this year. The reason for this is simple. Americans, whether they be investors, small business owners, or simply consumers, understand that they may have a larger tax bill come next year, meaning they will have less aftertax income. Faced with that possibility, we should not be surprised if Americans are choosing to consume less or put off business investments until they know what their tax situation is going to be. Just this week there was a Bloomberg article entitled ``Fiscal Cliff Concerns Hurting Economy As Companies Hold Back.'' The article quoted a senior economist at Bank of America who said, ``You don't board up the windows when the hurricane is there. You board up the windows in anticipation.'' This economist predicted U.S. growth decelerating to 1.3 percent in the third quarter of this year and 1 percent in the fourth quarter. The moral of the story is clear. The sooner we act to extend the current tax rates, the better off our economy will be and the better off will be the 12.7 million Americans who are currently unemployed. The sooner we act, the better off will be the 5.4 million Americans who have been unemployed long term or the 46.2 million Americans living in poverty or the record 46 million Americans who receive food stamps. I agree with President Obama when he said in August of 2009, ``You don't raise taxes in a recession.'' End quote of President Obama in August of 2009. If you should not raise taxes in a recession, it stands to reason you also should not raise taxes that will cause a recession. I also agree with a number of my Democratic colleagues quoted earlier this week in an article about these pending tax increases. I agree with Senator Jim Webb, who is quoted as saying, ``We shouldn't raise taxes on ordinary income.'' I agree with Senator Ben Nelson, ``My druthers is to extend the tax cuts for everybody.'' I agree with former Senator Pete Domenici and former OMB Director Alice Rivlin, who appeared before the Finance Committee earlier this week, and who both agreed we need a short-term extension of current tax law in order to get us to a place where we can consider fundamental reforms to our Tax Code and our entitlement programs. Even former President Bill Clinton, a major surrogate for the Obama campaign, admitted the obvious when he said recently that a short-term extension of the tax cuts might be necessary. Former President Clinton and other Democratic Members whom I mentioned have not suddenly become supply-side tax cutters. But they realize it is simply common sense that with the economy slowing, the last thing the Congress should do is slam on the brakes by allowing massive tax increases. We were reminded earlier this week just how destructive the proposed income tax rate increases would be on the sector of our economy responsible for the bulk of new job creation, and that is our small businesses. According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation released on June 18, the tax increases that President Obama has proposed would hit more than half--53 percent, to be precise--of all flowthrough business income. The Joint Tax Committee estimates that 40,000 business owners would find themselves subject to higher tax rates next year. Does anyone think, with unemployment above 8 percent for 41 straight months, that higher taxes on nearly a million business owners is the right policy? Yet that is exactly where we are headed if we do not act. Of course, extending current tax law temporarily is only a short-term fix. What is needed is comprehensive tax reform, much like the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Real tax reform will drive economic growth higher, will lead to robust job creation, and result in more revenue to the Federal Government. But real tax reform will require Presidential leadership, something that has been unfortunately lacking over the past 3\1/2\ years. Perhaps next year we will have a President truly willing to commit to tax reform, a President who is not content with simply releasing a 23-page framework for corporate tax reform. But until we get to comprehensive tax reform, the least we can do now is ensure that Americans do not face a massive new tax hike. In conclusion, we are facing a moment of truth. We can choose to put our heads in the sand and pretend as though Taxmaggedon is not real, we can choose to accept slower economic growth for the remainder of this year and a recession in the first half of next year or we can choose to take action in a way that says, loudly and clearly to all Americans, now is not the time for a massive new tax increase. I am hopeful we will see a bill from the House of Representatives in the coming weeks to extend the tax rates in order to avert Taxmaggedon. If the Senate majority is serious in its rhetoric of getting our economy back on track, they will allow a straight up-or-down vote on this measure. Fundamental tax reform may need to wait until the next Congress, but we can and we should act immediately to forestall the looming tax increases that we know will throw this economy back into a recession. It is not a Republican or a Democratic thing to do, it is simply common sense. I am hopeful the Democratic majority will allow for debate and vote on an extension of the current tax rates sooner rather than later. Every day we wait is another day our economy suffers unnecessarily. I do not have to tell anybody here, if you look at all the economic data that comes in month after month, we have the weakest economic recovery in 60 years. We have 23 million unemployed or underemployed Americans. We have, as I said, 41 consecutive months now of unemployment over 8 percent, and we have anemic, sluggish growth projections next year by the Congressional Budget Office if in fact we do not take the steps necessary to avert Taxmaggedon. I hope the House of Representatives will vote. I hope the U.S. Senate will follow suit. I hope the President of the United States will join us in recognizing that we cannot afford to allow taxes to go up--the largest tax increase in American history--on January 1 of next year. We cannot wait until a lameduck session to address it, because every single day we do, Americans, investors, small businesses are putting off decisions about hiring, about putting their capital to work and growing this economy. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded and that I be allowed to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize the South Dakota United Way. This is the 125th anniversary of the United Way and I would like to specifically acknowledge the South Dakota chapters on this special day. The local United Way has been active in South Dakota since 1929 and has made outstanding contributions to the communities they serve. There are 11 United Way locations in South Dakota providing services such as educational opportunities, lower income community aid, and health awareness programs. The United Way partners with many local businesses, furthering their community impact. I would like to offer my congratulations on this monumental day to this program and to all the great men and women whose generosity and service make the United Way a success.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in the years 1994 to 2003, the Congress appropriated over $36 billion in ad hoc or emergency assistance for farmers and ranchers across this country above and beyond the normal farm program payments. Let me say that again--$36 billion in a 10-year period between 1994 and 2003 above and beyond normal farm program payments. Since the emergence of the Crop Insurance Program, we have seen those disaster ad hoc emergency bills go away. The Crop Insurance Program is the centerpiece of this farm policy. That is what this entire farm bill is built around. That is what farmers and producers in this country said they wanted. There is going to be an amendment offered by our colleagues Senators Durbin and Coburn that would limit the availability of that to people who have adjusted gross incomes under $750,000. What I would say to that is that this amendment--the amendment I am offering--is not about those who are making more than $750,000; it is about those who make less whose premiums would go up as a result of that change. We need a good, strong Crop Insurance Program for the farmers in this country. That is what this farm bill is built upon. We should not take any chances with it.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to respond to the comments of the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2437.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his leadership on this issue, for yielding the time, and I appreciate everything he has done to bring S.J. Res. 37 to the floor of the Senate. As the father of two daughters, I want a cleaner, safer, healthier environment for their generation and for future generations. Thanks to the commonsense policies that balance economic growth with a cleaner environment, our country has made significant progress toward improving the quality of our air and water. We have made progress under Republican Presidents and we have made progress under Democratic Presidents. We have also made progress during Democratic control and Republican control of the Senate. But what the Obama administration is doing with this regulation, and with many of the other policies that pertain to energy, is pursuing an ideologically driven agenda in which the costs far outweigh the benefits. He promised his energy plan would necessarily make electricity costs skyrocket, and his policies are clearly delivering on that promise. A prime example of that flawed agenda is Utility MACT, which is the most expensive regulation in EPA's history, with an estimated cost of $10 billion. These are costs that will be passed on to families and small businesses across the country at a time when we are experiencing the worst economic recovery in over 60 years. We all know the statistics. Unemployment has been at 8 percent now for 40 consecutive months. Real unemployment is above 14 percent. There are 23 million Americans who are not working today, and 5.4 million Americans have remained out of work for over a year. Despite these facts, President Obama continues to push regulations such as Utility MACT that are going to make energy more expensive and, at the same time, destroy good-paying jobs. According to the National Economic Research Associates, Utility MACT will cost between 180,000 and 215,000 jobs by the year 2015. When including President Obama's other regulations on the electric power sector, the United States stands to lose approximately 1.65 million jobs by the year 2020. We simply cannot afford these politically driven regulations at a time when 23 million Americans remain unemployed or underemployed. Low-income and middle-class families are the ones who will be hit the hardest by the administration's actions. Families who earn less than $50,000 already spend 21 percent of their income on energy costs compared to 9 percent for those making more than $50,000. Now, thanks to the EPA's regulatory actions, those costs are going to go up an average of 6\1/2\ percent and as much as 19 percent in some areas. Middle-class incomes have already fallen by over $4,300 these past 3 years, and now President Obama wants to further burden them with higher energy costs. These higher energy costs are not some far-off projection. In many cases, these costs are already being realized. As an example, PJM, which is a regional transmission organization which coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity in 13 States and the District of Columbia, in its May 2012 capacity auction reported 2-year capacity price increases of 390 percent. PJM is reporting a nearly tenfold increase in wholesale energy costs in northern Ohio. According to one of their spokespersons, Capacity prices were higher than last year's because of retirements of existing coal-fired generation resulting largely from environmental regulations which go into effect in 2015. The result could cause electricity bills across the PJM region to increase by up to $130 and potentially much higher in places such as northern Ohio. In addition to electricity rates, EPA's agenda will drive up the cost of food, transportation, fuels, and manufactured goods, as those costs get passed on across all the sectors of the economy. The end result is more pain for the middle class, slower economic growth, and fewer jobs. The President likes to talk a lot about fairness, so I will ask my colleagues: Is it fair that unaccountable EPA bureaucrats are going to drive up utility bills by up to 19 percent? Is it fair manufacturers are going to have to pay higher energy bills rather than hire new workers? Is it fair that small towns across the Midwest are already being devastated by coal plant closings on account of regulations from the Obama administration? Is it fair that thousands of workers are going to be laid off and lose not only their paychecks but their employer-provided health care coverage as well? For most South Dakotans and millions of hard-working taxpayers across the country, I believe the answer is that the consequences of these regulations are inherently unfair. They penalize hard-working middle- class Americans. In the case of Utility MACT, consumers are going to pay a heavy price for President Obama's political agenda to restrict access to the abundant and affordable sources of domestic energy we possess in this country. Most Americans believe regulations should work for consumers and not against consumers. Unfortunately, EPA bureaucrats have drafted the Utility MACT regulation in an inefficient and unworkable manner. Utility MACT's new source standards are so strict they cannot possibly be met. According to the Institute of Clean Air Companies, the proenvironmental trade association comprising nearly 100 suppliers of air pollution equipment, Utility MACT makes it ``nearly impossible to construct new coal-fired units because financing of such units requires guarantees from equipment suppliers that all emission limits can be met.'' There has to be a better approach. S.J. Res. 37, which would force a rewrite of Utility MACT, is the only solution to address the rule's problems. It is time to rewrite Utility MACT in a manner that better balances economic growth with environmental protection. I hope today we will have a majority of our colleagues here in the Senate who will support S.J. Res. 37. Doing so will send a strong message to the Obama administration that the Senate will not stand by and watch his regulatory agenda further hurt small businesses and middle-class families, making it more expensive and more difficult for businesses in this country to create jobs. That is the end result of this regulation. It is the end result of many of the energy policies and regulations coming out of this administration. That has to stop. We have to get Americans back to work. We have to get our economy growing again. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my Republican colleagues, Senators McCain and Ayotte, and myself be permitted to enter into a colloquy for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Justin Posey, an intern in Senator Paul's office, be granted the privilege of the floor during today's session of the Senate.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Ironically, the point my colleague from New Hampshire made earlier and the statements made by the President's own Defense Secretary about what these cuts would mean just speak volumes. It is absolutely stunning when we look at the impact this would have on our national security budget, and, at least to date, the President is not weighing in on this argument at all. I think what the Senator from New Hampshire and Senator McCain and I are saying is this: Show us your plan. If we are going to do something about this, we need to know how they intend to implement this. So the transparency issue is very important. Asking them to tell us how they are planning on making these reductions seems to be a critically important part of not only informing the American public but giving Congress a pathway--if there is one--to address and perhaps redistribute these reductions. When we are talking about a $109 billion reduction that will take effect in January of next year--half of which comes out of defense--on top of $\1/2\ trillion in cuts to accrue over the next decade that were approved as part of the Budget Control Act, that is a huge chunk out of our national security budget. I think the Senator from New Hampshire made an excellent point as well about how this obviously impacts national security first and foremost. I have always maintained that if we don't get national security right to protect and defend the country, then the rest is all secondary. But there is a huge economic impact, as was pointed out not only by the study my colleague from New Hampshire mentioned but also by the Congressional Budget Office recently in speaking about the fiscal cliff that hits us in the first part of January next year and could cost us 1.3 percent in growth, which, according to the President's economic advisers, could be 1.3 million jobs. If the national security issue does not get your attention, certainly we would think the economy and jobs issue would. Yet we are hearing silence--crickets coming out of the White House. I would hope he would weigh in on this debate and at least provide us with an idea of how the administration intends to implement this and hopefully a plan about how to avert this. As has been emphasized by the President's Defense Secretary, there would be a catastrophic impact on our national security interest.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, again I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from New Hampshire as a member of the Armed Services Committee on not only this issue of national security but also as a member of the Budget Committee, where we serve together. It is critical that we do something soon, and the reason for that, as the Senator from New Hampshire mentioned, is that a lameduck session of Congress--is not an appropriate time to try to legislate on a major issue such as this, particularly given the fact that there is going to be a pileup of other issues. We have tax rate expiration issues to deal with and potentially another debt limit vote coming up. It seems to me that we ought to provide as much certainty as we can to our military, to the leaders of our military who have to make these decisions, and to the people who build these weapons systems and experience many of these reductions that will impact jobs. As my colleague mentioned, there is a Warren Act requirement that they notify people if they are going to lay off people. There has to be a lead time to this, and that is why getting a plan from the administration that lays out in specific and detailed terms exactly what they intend to do with regard to sequestration is really important to this process and as a matter of fundamental transparency for the American people and for the Congress. Clearly, there is a need--in my view, at least--for us to deal with this in advance of the election, not waiting, not punting, and not kicking the can down the road as is so often done here. I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Arizona, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, and my colleague from New Hampshire in raising and elevating this issue and putting it on the radar screen of the Senate in hopes that something might actually happen before the election. But that will require that the President of the United States and his administration get in the game. So far, we haven't heard anything from them with regard to how they would implement sequestration or what suggestions they might have that would avoid and avert what would be a national security catastrophe if these planned or at least proposed reductions go into effect at the first of next year. I see that the Senator from Arizona, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, is back. Does the Senator have any closing comment before we wrap up this session? Well, let me thank my colleagues in the Senate and particularly the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from New Hampshire for what they are doing on this issue. I hope that we are successful and that in the end we can get some greater transparency from the administration about how they intend to implement these reductions and that we might be able to take the steps that are necessary, as was pointed out, on a bipartisan basis. This is not an issue that affects one side or the other, it is an issue that affects the entire country when we are talking about our national security interests and the great jeopardy and risk we put them in if we don't take steps to address this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. I would say to my colleague, the Senator from New Hampshire--because she mentioned that she and I both serve on the Budget Committee--that this perhaps could have been avoided had we passed a budget that dealt with title reform. The reason we have these huge cuts, these steep and unbalanced cuts to the defense budget, is because we punted on the Budget Control Act to the supercommittee, which didn't produce a result, and this triggered these across-the-board reductions in spending--half of which come out of the defense budget, as the Senator mentioned, a defense budget that represents only 20 percent of Federal spending. So proportionality here seems to be a real issue. Why would you gut the part of a budget from which you get the resources to keep your country safe and secure? Frankly, it comes back--in my view, at least--to the fact that now, for 3 consecutive years, the Budget Committee, on which the Senator and I both serve, has failed to produce a budget, spelling out a more reasonable and thoughtful plan for how to deal with these challenges as opposed to having this budget axe fall in this disproportionate way on our national security interests. I am curious as to the Senator's thoughts with regard to the reason why we are where we are today.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I come to the floor, along with my colleagues, Senators McCain and Ayotte, to talk about the significant uncertainty surrounding sequestration and its threat to our national security. The triggered reduction in spending is $1.2 trillion. After accounting for 18 percent in debt service savings, the required reductions amount to $984 billion to be distributed evenly over a 9- year period or $109.3 billion per year. So what we are talking about is $54.7 billion in reductions will be necessary in both the defense and nondefense categories, despite the fact--despite the fact--defense funding constitutes just 20 percent of the budget. As my colleagues Senators McCain and Ayotte are well aware, this sequester disproportionately impacts defense spending, putting our national security at risk. It has been almost a full year since the Budget Control Act was passed, and Congress needs a precise understanding from this administration as to the full effects of sequestration on national security funding. Both Senator McCain and I, along with Senators Sessions, Ayotte, and others, have called on the administration to detail the impact of sequestration on defense accounts. This information is necessary for Congress to address the deep and unbalanced defense budget cuts that are expected under sequestration-- which are in addition, I might add, to the $487 billion in reductions that were carried out last August. What little information has been made available from the administration about the planned cuts to defense should give all of us pause about our Nation's security if sequestration proceeds without any modifications. In a letter to Senators McCain and Graham this past November, Secretary Panetta said that over the long term, sequestration means we will have the smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest fleet of ships since 1915, and the smallest tactical fighter force in the history of the Air Force. If sequestration were to go into effect, we risk turning back the clock on our military strength to where it was during the early 20th Century, before World War II. That clearly cannot be allowed to happen if we hope to have a future in which we are secure, prosperous, and at peace in the world. I wish to turn now to my colleague Senator McCain, who is the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. He has been a leader in calling attention to this cloud of sequestration cuts looming over the Defense Department and its threat to our national security. He is, obviously, one of the foremost experts in the Senate when it comes to the issue of national security, and someone who has been raising the issue of sequestration and its impact to our national security interest for some time. I would ask Senator McCain if he might comment on his observations with regard to this issue and its impact on national security.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, earlier today the majority leader and the majority whip came to the floor to decry and denounce, attack Republicans for what appeared to be literally everything bad that has happened in the world in the last several years, to the point you have to ask yourself, do they really believe what they are saying? They came down here to talk about how Republicans are blocking this, are blocking that. I think it is important to point out that now for the past 6 years, the Democrats have been the majority party in the U.S. Senate. In fact, for 2 of those years, they had a filibuster-proof, 60-vote majority in the Senate. Filibuster proof--literally, they could do anything they wanted to in the Senate. They had a majority in the House of Representatives, and, of course, they got the Presidency. If you look at the volume of the legislation that was produced at the time, most of the things that were accomplished with the 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority were things the American people disagreed with--I think as evidenced now by what you see in terms of public opinion polling about the health care bill. Most people disagree with the individual mandate that was included in that legislation and disagree generally with many of the provisions in the bill. But my point very simply is, for a period of time, the Democrats literally had the run of the tables here in Washington, DC, as we know it--a filibuster-proof, 60-vote majority in the Senate, a majority in the House of Representatives, and the Presidency--yet they come down and decry Republicans as being responsible for all the things that have or have not happened here in the Senate. One of the things they point out is that there is this intent by Republicans to continue to filibuster legislation. I would argue that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, everybody knows that in the Senate the majority leader is the person who is first to be recognized on the Senate floor, which allows him to use that power to offer a series of Democratic amendments to pending legislation in a way that prevents Republicans from offering their own ideas. It is called filling the tree--sort of a term of art that is used around here in the Senate. But filling the tree essentially is what the Democratic majority leader has the opportunity to do because he has the power of recognition and he can fill the amendment tree and prevent the Republican amendments from being offered and voted on. Now, interestingly enough, Majority Leader Reid once insisted that this practice ``runs against the basic nature of the Senate.'' Let me repeat that. Majority Leader Reid once insisted that filling the amendment tree ``runs against the basic nature of the Senate.'' But by the way the Senate operates today, it is pretty clear that he has abandoned that assessment. According to the Congressional Research Service, the CRS, Majority Leader Reid has employed this tactic a record 59 times. He has used it to block minority input into legislation 50 percent more often than the past six majority leaders combined. I think that is worth repeating. This majority leader has used the filling-of-the-tree procedure 50 percent more often than the past six majority leaders combined. So the only option the minority is left with under that scenario is to basically try to get votes on amendments and to work with the majority, in which case the majority says: No, we are not going to give you any amendments; we have filled the tree. So a cloture motion is filed, and we end up having a vote on cloture. What we have seen repeatedly now is the Senate sort of break down into this state of dysfunction simply because the majority does not want to make tough votes on amendments. We have seen this over and over and over again. As I say, it is historic and unprecedented in terms of the number of times it has occurred in the U.S Senate. I would also suggest that the real reason, probably, that we do not have votes on amendments and that the filling of the tree is used repeatedly is because Members on the other side do not want to make the hard decisions, do not want to cast the tough votes. I think that is evidenced as well by the fact that for 3 years in a row now, we have not had a budget in the Senate. If there was a real interest in solving problems, you would think the majority--again, which has the responsibility to put a budget on the floor--would bring a budget to the floor that would set a direction for the future of this country and ask the Members of the Senate to vote on it, to vote on amendments, to have an opportunity to say to the American people: This is how we would lead the country. That has not happened now for over 1,100 days, for the past 3 years. Now, Republicans are ready and willing to work with the majority, as we have evidenced on many occasions. In fact, we are going to debate, this next week, farm bill legislation--something for which there is bipartisan support in the Senate. I would argue that there are many things we would like to see done. We would love to have an opportunity to vote on extending the tax rates that are in effect today--which is something that even President Clinton in the last few days has come out in support of--because we know--everybody here knows--we are facing this fiscal cliff. It could be very dangerous to our economy if steps are not taken to prevent and avoid that. And we would be more than willing to work with the majority on extending the tax rates to give some certainty to our job creators and our small businesses. We would also like to work with them on the sequester that is going to happen at the end of the year, in redistributing those cuts in a way that does not completely decimate our national security budget. There are lots of things the Republicans are ready to work on with our colleagues on the other side when it comes to trying to grow the economy and create jobs. But, frankly, we believe it is important that we at least have an opportunity to get amendments debated and voted on. That simply has not happened, as I pointed out by the number of times the majority leader has filled the tree. So I am not suggesting there is not plenty of blame to go around in Washington for the state of the situation we are in. All I am simply saying is that for the majority leader to come down here and suggest that somehow Republicans are responsible for gridlock here in the U.S. Senate is a complete denial of reality and a denial of the facts. As I said before, they had a period here for a few years where they had the complete run of the place. They had a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, a majority in the House of Representatives, and the Presidency, enabling you to do literally anything you wanted to do. They still have the majority in the U.S. Senate, the ability to control the agenda and to determine what does and does not come to the floor, what amendments are allowed, and the use of the filling of the tree in an unprecedented way. It is pretty clear to me that to suggest for a moment it is Republicans who are attempting to slow things down around here or keep the majority from working its will is completely contrary to the facts and the reality, as I think most Senators--all Senators, I think--know. I know my colleague from Wyoming is someone who is somewhat new here, but he has been here long enough now to have seen many times where the majority has prevented the minority from actually offering amendments, getting votes on amendments on the floor of the Senate. I would just suggest to him and allow him to make some observations with regard to this subject as well because it strikes me, at least, that he and I both--and many of our colleagues--are very interested in working with the majority on things that would actually put people back to work, get our economy growing again. We would love to have that opportunity.