Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER. Well, it is one of our basic responsibilities. As I said, the discretionary part of it is the appropriations bills. Not one single appropriations bill has cleared this Senate during 2012. And yes, indeed, at a time when we are running a debt of $6 trillion, when we are seeing our friends and allies across the ocean teetering on the brink, we are seeing all the warning signs. We have time in this Capitol, in this Capital City, the shining city on the hill, to be an example to the world. I can only answer the Senator's question by saying that the President's budget was so unpopular it did not get a single vote. There is not one single--even the most leftwing, left-leaning Senator would not step forward and embrace that budget. I can only assume that what they would have suggested would have been very much like that. But when you are in the majority, you have a responsibility to lead. We all have a responsibility to lead, but in particular, when you are the only vehicle for bringing bills to the floor, you have a responsibility to lead in a time of crisis. That is what we have been lacking here in the Senate. Of course, we do have the Federal Reserve, and the leader of the Federal Reserve announced the other day that he is going to print $40 billion extra each month. Now, that is his solution. I would counsel against that. I think most Members on this side would counsel against that. But at least it is a plan. We have had no indication from the leader of the Senate whether they like that plan. We do know this. We passed a stimulus bill over here that cost almost $1 trillion. Unemployment has gone up under this bill that was supposed to jump-start the economy. It was supposed to do two things: jump-start the economy and keep the unemployment rate 8 percent or less. Of course, we know that for 42 months now, the unemployment rate has been over 8 percent. And the last thing the stimulus bill did was jump-start the economy. It has been going downhill ever since. It is hard to put a pretty face on this situation. Of course, the result is that a staggering 23 million American citizens either do not have a job, are underemployed, or have stopped looking for work. In addition, of course, the President promised in 2008--the Senator remembers that promise--that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Well, this is the end of his first term. The deficit has mushroomed, not been cut in half. We are in a financial crisis, and everybody on television seems to be trying to paint a rosy picture and avoid the subject. So I am glad to join with my friend, the ranking member on the Budget Committee, to suggest that we will have a plan, as House Republicans had a specific plan, in black and white, to address this unbelievable financial crisis our country faces.

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

Mr. WICKER. No question about it. It does not make me comfortable to point fingers, but there is no getting around the fact that there is one person on this planet who can call up a bill before this Senate; that is, the majority leader of the Senate. He has not brought up the defense bill. We also do not have a budget resolution. Again, our friends in the House, the Republicans in the House, under Speaker Boehner, have during the 2 years of their stewardship brought budget resolutions to the floor, passed them, sent them over here, only to be ignored. The President has submitted budgets--did not get a single vote in the House of Representatives, did not get a single vote when we called it up as sort of a test vote here in the Senate. But this Senate, under the leadership of the Democratic majority, has not followed the statute that says you bring a budget resolution up every year--has not done it. We are into our fourth year now. Beyond that, they do not have a budget deficit reduction plan. It is one thing to have a resolution that could say anything, but what the American people need, what our future generations are crying out for is a plan to reduce this debt. I look forward to and hope to see the day when my friend from Alabama is chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. I would ask him to assure everyone within the sound of our voices today that under his leadership as chairman of the Budget Committee, we will see a budget resolution brought to the floor and debated according to statute.

Mr. WICKER. Well, it would be. I think that with the leadership of people such as Senator Hatch, we would not be ignoring what we have out there facing us in America today, and that is nothing less than a financial crisis. The Senator from Utah is correct. The President of the United States is doing everything he can to change the subject from the central issue of our faltering economy. Yet the mainstream media is out there playing trivial pursuit, talking about everything that is not important, and that is a distraction. But you just can't get around the facts. The facts are these: We have a $16 trillion staggering debt in this country. This government has added $6 trillion in 3\1/2\ short years. Just the facts. You can't get around it. You also can't get around these absolute truths: We have had no appropriations bills come out of this Senate this year. Our Republican friends in the House--it is a different story. They have done their work, and they passed product after product, as they are supposed to do. And my hat is off to the chair, the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, for getting the appropriations bills done. We have not done that in this Democrat-led Senate. We have not passed a defense bill--first time in half a century that we will have gone through a whole session and not passed a defense bill, at a time when we have troops at war, troops in harm's way. Our men and women are putting themselves at risk and fighting and dying. We do not have a defense bill.

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

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my friend from Alabama and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor.) Without objection, it is so ordered. The Budget

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

Mr. WICKER. I tell you what else it would do. It would tell the truth to the American people about what we are facing. I like what our young nominee for Vice President said. We have got time to fix this, but we need to fix it, and we don't have much time. Speaking of telling the truth, I wish to pivot, if I could, to a question that has been raised on this floor in the last couple of days about this Senate's lack of compliance with the Budget Act. There is not a more learned expert on the federal Budget Act of 1974 than my friend from Alabama, and I would ask him to clarify, if he would, the statements and misstatements and charges and countercharges that have been made about the fact there has not been a budget resolution brought to this floor for consideration and amendment.

Mr. WICKER. It is what every city council, every State legislature cannot avoid. They do not have a printing press down in Montgomery, AL, or Jackson, MS. I know the Senator has seen the local delegations of county officials coming in and talking about economic development. They tell me: Senator, we have had to cut back on this, we have had to cut back on that, we have had to do this to our budget. We used to be able to afford these things and now we can't afford them anymore. They have had to make sensible decisions. Councils and legislatures, Republican and Democrat, have faced the hard choices, and it can't be any fun for them. They have to face the voters and say: we paid for this last year, we don't have the money this year. And families have had to do that as well.

Mr. WICKER. That is right.

Mr. WICKER. No, sir.

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the gifted athletes from my home State of Mississippi who represented the United States in the 2012 London Olympic games and Paralympic games. They join an extraordinary legacy built by generations of great American Olympians and Paralympians, and their historic successes on the world stage are a proud moment for Mississippi. In the London Olympic games, Gulfport native Brittney Reese became the first American woman to win a gold medal in long jump since Jackie Joyner-Kersee, who won it more than two decades ago in the Seoul games. The Olympic title tops an impressive career for the former University of Mississippi standout and four-time world champion, who has become an unmatched competitor over the past several years. Particularly heartfelt and inspiring was Reese's dedication of her gold-medal success to the people of Mississippi and those still recovering from Hurricane Katrina, which damaged her family's home 7 years ago. As she told reporters, ``This is a great way for me to bring something home and show them we can all do this together.'' Bianca Knight of Ridgeland helped lead the women's 4x100-meter relay team to a gold-medal win in an incredible 40.82 seconds--besting the world record set by East Germany in 1985. The performance earned the United States its first Olympic gold medal in the women's relay event since 1996 in Atlanta. In the men's 4x100-meter relay, Coldwater sprinter Trell Kimmons and his teammates blazed through to a silver-medal finish--setting a new American record. Former Jackson State University track star Michael Tinsley also won silver in the 400-meter hurdles. Isiah Young, a talented athlete at the University of Mississippi, made his Olympic debut in the exciting 200-meter dash, advancing to the semifinals with an impressive run against decorated Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt. One Mississippian continued her Olympic success this time as a coach for the U.S. women's basketball team. Assistant coach Jennifer Gillom, an Ole Miss graduate from Abbeville, helped lead the team to a gold- medal victory in London. She won gold as a player during the Seoul Games and is the first person in Ole Miss women's basketball history to be part of multiple medal wins. Like the Olympics, the London Paralympic games were also a spectacular display of athleticism and perseverance. The international sports event for athletes with disabilities began shortly after World War II as a way for those with war injuries to enhance their quality of life. More than 4,000 athletes competed in this year's Paralympic games--including four Mississippians who captivated the world with outstanding performances. Shaquille Vance of Houston set a new American record in the men's 200-meter-T42 event--earning the silver medal. Richard Browne of Jackson sprinted to a silver-medal finish in the highly anticipated 100-meter-T44 race. Top-ranked competitors Ryan Estep and Joseph Brinson of Florence showcased their expertise as part of the U.S. wheelchair fencing team, with Estep competing in the epee-style event and Brinson in the saber-style competition. I thank the family and friends who have supported and encouraged these athletes throughout this incredible journey. The Olympics and Paralympics are a dream for athletes around the world and a life- changing experience for those who participate. I congratulate these inspiring Mississippians on their remarkable accomplishments. They have worked hard and made us proud.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, yesterday the New York Times said this: ``The 112th Congress is set to enter the Congressional record books as the least productive body in a generation.'' This is true, and the responsibility falls squarely at the feet of the Democratic Senate leadership. The Senate has taken just 193 recorded votes this year. The Senate has been more than 3 years since passing a budget. The majority leader has shut off the right to amend a record number of times. The majority leader has filled the amendment tree a record 66 times--more than his 6 predecessors in the Senate who did it a total of 40 times. The majority leader has shut off the right to debate. He calls up a bill, he files cloture on it, and then he has the audacity to call that a filibuster. In short, the Democrats have failed to pass a budget, have failed to do a single appropriations bill, and have failed to consider a Defense authorization bill when we have troops in harm's way. America needs new leadership.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. If the Senator will yield for a moment, this has also the same effect on mom-and-pops, family businesses that may have been in a family for generations. We are going to impose a 55-percent confiscatory tax on them. I am just speechless that this bill has now gotten to the point where it brings us back to the earlier punitive estate tax rates.

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

Mr. WICKER. I appreciate what my friend said about the drought. Much of my State at the last minute escaped it, but I happened to be in the State of Missouri in the past few days and saw the terrible drought conditions there. I cannot think of a worse time, with our farm community being devastated by this drought, to talk about a huge tax increase on our agriculture community, particularly in the form of the estate tax. I just learned a remarkable thing. I would ask my colleagues if this is the state of the bill we will now be voting on at 4 this afternoon. The result of this legislation would be to take the estate tax back up to 55 percent on all of the value of an estate over $1 million. This would be a devastating tax increase. I honestly do not believe the American people understand that this is the effect of the legislation our friends on the majority side have brought forward. But if this bill is passed the way it is currently configured, that would be the result. We would go back to the old law, 55-percent tax on all, the value of these southern and midwestern farms, of any small business across the country, would go up to 55 percent over values of $1 million. It is an unthinkable result. I frankly would not be surprised if the phones across the street in our offices are ringing off the wall at this result. I ask my friend from South Dakota if I have misunderstood the effect of this legislation.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I come to the floor today to call Members' attention to recent action taken at the Parliamentary Assembly meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which convened in Monaco earlier this month. The OSCE considered and passed with overwhelming support a resolution on the rule of law in Russia and the case of Sergei Magnitsky. This is a resounding and much welcomed rebuke of Russia's deplorable human rights record and systemic corruption. With the Magnitsky resolution, the OSCE--made up of 56 participating states spanning Europe, Central Asia, and North America--reaffirms the widespread call for justice and rule of law. The international group has sent a clear signal to human rights violators that they will be held accountable. The OSCE resolution supports government efforts to ban visas, freeze assets, and employ other financial sanctions against those connected to the illegal detention and tragic death of Sergei Magnitsky. The young lawyer was beaten and denied medical care in a Russian prison after uncovering a vast conspiracy by Russian officials involving $230 million in tax fraud. Sergei Magnitsky died as a result of his treatment, and no one has ever been held responsible for his death. I have been a member of the Helsinki Commission for the last several years, and I have seen firsthand the contributions the OSCE has made to advance democratic, economic, security, and human rights issues. I was unable to attend the Parliamentary Assembly meeting, but I am grateful our colleague Senator John McCain was able to be there to highlight the importance of this particular issue. The Magnitsky case is just one example of the gross human rights abuses and official impunity in Russia. But as Senator McCain noted in his statement before the OSCE meeting in Monaco, ``The demand for justice for Sergei is what has mobilized the world in his memory.'' Senator McCain is right to point out that the OSCE resolution--as well as national initiatives to punish those implicated in Sergei Magnitsky's death--is not anti-Russia. Indeed, a return to the rule of law would be of great benefit to the Russian people. To quote my colleague Senator McCain: Defending the innocent and punishing the guilty is pro- Russia. . . . The virtues that Sergei Magnitsky embodied-- integrity, fair-dealing, fidelity to truth and justice, and the deepest love of country, which does not turn a blind eye to the failings of one's government, but seeks to remedy them by insisting on the highest standards--this too is pro- Russia, and I would submit that it represents the future that most Russians want for themselves and their country. Senator McCain then goes on to encourage the assembly to align ``with the highest aspirations of the Russian people--Sergei's aspirations-- for justice, for equal dignity under the law, and for the indomitable spirit of human freedom.'' Like the OSCE, Members of this Senate will also have an opportunity to lend our voices to the call for justice and accountability. The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act would impose travel and financial sanctions on those associated with human rights crimes. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to uphold this country's commitment to the protection of human rights. I salute the leadership of my colleague and friend Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland for his leadership in this regard, and I am pleased to note that the Magnitsky Act was included during consideration of extending normal trade relations to Russia in yesterday's Senate Finance Committee markup. We are making great progress on this issue, and I look forward to a vote on the Senate floor. In conclusion, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Senator McCain's full remarks at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Absolutely. I thank my friend for leading us in this colloquy. We ought to be talking about jobs and the economy. We ought to be bringing legislation to the floor and giving our side an opportunity to offer suggestions and hearing if the majority party in this Senate has something to offer other than the 3\1/2\ years of failed policies. Their intentions are absolutely honorable. Everyone wants to create jobs. Everyone wants the unemployment rate to go down. But I think any fair observer would have to conclude that after 3\1/2\ years, the policies of the majority party in this body, the policies of the Obama administration, have been an utter failure--forty consecutive months of unemployment over 8 percent. The latest numbers were 8.2 percent. The last time we had a comparable sustained period of joblessness was World War II. It is absolutely unbelievable that the policies of our Democratic friends have been so unsuccessful and such a failure. To put that in context, in September of 2008, we had a severe crisis because of the subprime loans, because of the excesses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which a lot of us who have been in the Congress for some time have tried to rein in. Because of that subprime crisis, unemployment went through the roof, the economy crashed. The other crisis we had earlier than that, of course, was September 11, 2001, when the terrorists attacked the very heartland and soul of the United States of America--the Twin Towers, the Pentagon. In 2001 we had a spike in unemployment and our economy went in the tank. Between that time, though, I think Americans should realize we did not have exactly everything we wanted in terms of job growth, but unemployment between 2002 and the middle of 2007 actually averaged between 4.5 percent unemployment and 6 percent unemployment. We were not happy with that then, but wouldn't we love to have that level of unemployment now rather than the 8.2 percent and the over 8 percent we have sustained for 40 straight months. As a matter of fact, Americans need to remember this does not have to be the case, the 8.2 percent. As late as October 2007, the unemployment rate in this country was 4.4 percent. We can do that again, but we will not do it again with the failed policies the President and his party have been imposing on our country during their entire stewardship. The Senator from Missouri mentioned it has been 8 percent or higher, and the effective rate is 11 percent if everybody who had left the job force came back trying to get a job. Actually, the unemployment rate in the African-American community is 15 percent--an astounding and shameful figure. The Obama stimulus program failed. It cost us over $800 billion, and we are going to have to pay that back somehow, but it failed. The unemployment rate for 40 straight months remains above 8 percent. Dodd- Frank failed. The Affordable Care Act not only has made health care less affordable and less available, but it has failed to stimulate any jobs. Then yesterday, as a member of the Banking Committee, I heard testimony, and this country heard testimony, from the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Basically, he said he has lowered the economic expectations. He and the rest of the Federal Reserve now say the economy is going to get worse than they expected in January of this year, and the unemployment rate will be above 7 percent in his estimation, even at the end of calendar year 2014. That would be 6 straight years, under these current policies--unless we change our approach to job creation--that would be 6 straight years of unemployment higher than it ever was during the first 7 years even of the Bush administration. We have some ideas about how to turn that around: an American-made energy policy; ending this regime of overregulation, which is just such a wet blanket on job creation; and ending the situation we have now of the tax burden on job creators. The tax burden on American risk takers is now higher than on any of our allies in the industrialized world. We hit job creators and risk takers and the people we want to help us with this 8.2-percent unemployment rate. We hit them harder than they do in any other country in the industrialized world. So we have some ideas. We would like an honest-to-goodness jobs bill, and we would like the majority leader to give us a vote on some amendments. Do not just call up a bill, fill up the tree, offer every amendment you could possibly offer on the Democratic side, file cloture, and call that a filibuster. We need to go back to regular order in this Senate and let's offer some ideas. Let's have a debate again on this Senate floor about some ideas we have about job creation. So I am glad to join my colleagues. I see my friend from Georgia in the Chamber, and I know he has been very thoughtful about this issue.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, it has been a tough day, a tough week. We could use a little bipartisanship in this Chamber and in this Congress. I don't understand it. We heard the Democratic leadership of the supercommittee come right out the other day and say that it was preferable to her that the fiscal cliff be encountered and that we actually bring our Nation over the fiscal cliff rather than working together in a bipartisan way to avoid it before the end of the year. Then I was mystified today to learn that the majority leader of this great body proposes next year, if his party remains in power, to forever change the nature of the Senate in terms of being a great deliberative body and to go to the majority-rule 51-vote process that they have in the House. It worked OK in the House, but we have never done that in the Senate. I am concerned with some of the things I have been hearing, and, frankly, I hope we can come back from the precipice of some of these disturbing proposals I have heard. One way to do that would be to address, in a bipartisan way, this issue of sequestration. So I rise this afternoon to point out to my colleagues that we are now less than 6 months away from seeing sequestration go into effect. This is a grim reality that was never supposed to happen. It is a reality that doesn't have to happen. But it will happen unless we act and unless the President signs legislation. Budget sequestration means defense and nondefense spending will be cut automatically and across the board, without regard to the priorities or the importance of programs. We need to avoid this. How did we get here? Almost a year ago, Congress voted for the Budget Control Act as a first step toward seriously addressing the national debt. We authorized, in good faith, a supercommittee to produce a blueprint that would reduce the national deficit by $1.5 trillion or more. Our hope and our expectation was that both political parties would come to a reasoned, long-term solution to America's debt crisis. Of course, that hope faded quickly with the announcement of an impasse by the supercommittee. With a national debt approaching an unprecedented $16 trillion, reining in Federal spending is imperative to our national and economic security. ADM Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put it simply: ``Our debt is our number one national security threat.'' Severe, across-the-board cuts to the Department of Defense are not the way to address this security threat, and they are not the way to achieve long-term fiscal responsibility. Federal debt is a national security threat, to be sure, but so is unilaterally cutting key funding to America's men and women in uniform. Realistically confronting the debt problem means addressing soaring entitlement costs, which are growing at three times the rate of inflation, three times the rate of our economic growth. We can't sustain that. But realistically confronting the debt does not mean gambling with the resources our military needs to protect this Nation and the skilled jobs necessary to supply today's advanced force. Unless we act, and act soon, $492 billion will be cut from defense spending beginning January 3, 2013. According to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the effect would be ``devastating''--a ``meat axe.'' Our Secretary of Defense, a member of the Obama administration, said it would ``hollow out the force.'' Unfortunately, Secretary Panetta and the White House, so far, have failed to identify the specific impact of these cuts. Clarity is needed as to how these automatic cuts would limit our capabilities. As of this moment, sequestration is the law of the land unless Congress passes-- and the President signs--a bill to stop it. The administration needs to get specific about the results of this ``meat axe.'' Our military faces a diverse set of challenges and emerging threats-- a nuclear North Korea, a volatile Iran that wants to be nuclear, our commitment to a Democratic Taiwan, and the competition for mineral resources in the South China Sea. All of these and more require the ability to project American power abroad. This year we celebrate the bicentennial of the War of 1812, and the lessons of that conflict should be remembered. During that war, it was our Navy that reaffirmed America's sovereignty. The United States saw that even the border of an expansive ocean would not fully protect our Nation. The influence of sea power on national security and commerce was clear then and it remains clear today. As ranking member of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower, I can attest that the Navy Department is the Armed Forces' most capital- intensive branch, and the Navy will be particularly hit hard by indiscriminate sequestration cuts. According to civilian and uniformed Navy leaders, our capacity to deter threats, defend our priorities, and project sea power could be gravely compromised. Sequestration would hurt readiness, fleet size, strategic investment, and the strength of America's workforce. The projected numbers are striking. The Marine Corps would endure an additional 10-percent cut in troop strength, leaving our marines without sufficient manpower to meet even one major contingency operation. The Navy fleet would drop to 230 ships, well below the Navy's 313-ship requirement. It would drop to 230 from 313, hindering the ability of our combatant commanders to execute their missions abroad. Even now, the Navy can satisfy only half of combatant commander requests for naval support. Sequestration could affect the quality of future investments and the long-term vitality of America's shipbuilding workforce. Experience has shown that stable shipbuilding rates have a direct impact on the acquisition and operational cost of amphibious ships, aircraft carriers, and submarines. Cuts would prevent the Navy from ensuring new ships are delivered on time and on budget. The average age of today's shipyard worker is 45, and only 24 percent of our naval shipbuilding workforce is under 35 years of age. Sequestration would drive a generation of skilled shipbuilders from the workforce and would have a prolonged negative impact on American high- tech manufacturing. I am proud to be from a State with a highly skilled manufacturing base. Mississippi workers produce ships, aircraft, and equipment that our troops depend upon throughout the world. Sharp cuts to defense will have a direct and detrimental impact on Mississippi's families and communities. The stakes are high for the military and America's economy. These looming cuts are real, they are drastic, and they are just around the corner. Sequestration is real and not a hypothetical threat. It is the law unless we change it. Our national security is on the line, and it is in our interest either to prevent sequestration or prepare for it. Indeed, some defense manufacturers have already begun the process of issuing legally required layoff warning notices to shareholders and employees. According to multiple forecasts, up to 1 million American jobs are at risk. The current unemployment rate already stands at 8.2 percent, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke projected unemployment rates will remain high, as he testified before the Congress yesterday and today. There are some faint and hopeful signs this catastrophe can be avoided. Indeed, in the Congress, there has always been bipartisan cooperation to ensure our military remains the best trained, the best equipped, and most professional fighting force in the world. We argue about a lot of things, but bipartisanship has prevailed when it comes to the defense budget. The fiscal year 2013 Defense authorization bill is a hopeful example. The bill recently passed by the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, contains many provisions reflecting Congress's support of the Defense Department's top strategic priorities. It also reflects the challenges we may encounter while outlining ways to reduce spending, and we must reduce military spending, no question about it. But sequestration is not the way. Also, with regard to the Defense authorization bill, I should mention this is the 51st consecutive year that Congress has passed such a bill. Again, that is testimony to bipartisanship with regard to DOD reauthorization. That is the good news. The bad news is the failure to address our past spending has compounded the situation we now face. Further delays only make the problem worse. We know tough decisions will have to be made to fix our country's debt problem. All Federal agencies, including DOD, will have to do more with less in today's era of fiscal austerity. But the bottom line is this: We have an overriding constitutional obligation to provide for the common defense, to ensure our country is safe, and that our men and women in uniform are well equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to work together in a bipartisan fashion toward a solution that achieves the fiscal discipline we need without compromising the ability of our military to protect and defend America. Addressing sequestration should be our No. 1 priority--this week. We should act before the August break. After Labor Day, after the political conventions, when campaigns are in full swing and we have only 2 months to go before these devastating cuts go into effect, do we truly believe the atmosphere will be conducive to solving sequestration? I don't think so. Is it truly in our Nation's best national security interest to address this during a lameduck session? I don't think so. We should not leave town for an August break if we have not answered this sequestration issue. The hour is upon us. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WICKER

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