A bill to prohibit Members of Congress and the President from receiving pay during Government shutdowns.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Lieberman and Senator Carper in introducing the Cyber Security and Internet Freedom Act of 2011. This vital legislation would

fortify the government's efforts to safeguard America's cyber networks from attack and ensure that access to the Internet is protected and its availability preserved for every American.

The Internet is vital to almost every facet of Americans' daily lives--from the water we drink to the power we use to the ways we communicate. It is essential to the free flow of ideas and information. The Internet is a manifestation of the ideals that underlie the First Amendment of our Constitution and the core freedoms that all Americans hold dear. It is essential that the Internet and our access to it be protected to ensure both reliability of the critical services that rely upon it and the availability of the information that travels over it. While the United States must ensure the security of our nation and its critical infrastructure, it must do so in a manner that does not deprive Americans of the ability to lawfully read or express their views. Neither the President nor any other Federal official should have the authority to ``shut down'' the Internet.

In June 2010, Senator Lieberman, Senator Carper, and I introduced legislation to strengthen the government's efforts to safeguard America's cyber networks from attack; build a public/private partnership to promote national cyber security priorities; and bolster the government's ability to set, monitor compliance with, and enforce standards and policies for securing Federal civilian systems and the sensitive information they contain. In late June, that bill was unanimously approved by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Today we are introducing for the 112th Congress the bill unanimously approved by our committee, but with explicit provisions preventing the President from shutting down the Internet and providing an opportunity for judicial review of designations of our most sensitive systems and assets as ``covered critical infrastructure.''

President Mubarak's actions in January to shut down Internet communications in Egypt were, and are, totally inappropriate. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that must be protected, and his ban was clearly designed to limit criticisms of his government. Our cyber security legislation is intended to protect the United States from external cyber attacks. Yet, some have suggested that the legislation the Committee reported during the last Congress would empower the President to deny U.S. citizens access to the Internet. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I would never sign on to legislation that authorized the President, or anyone else, to shut down the Internet. Emergency or no, the exercise of such broad authority would be an affront to our Constitution.

But our outmoded current laws do give us reason to be concerned. Most important, under current law, in the event of a cyber attack, the President's authorities are broad and ambiguous--a recipe for encroachments on privacy and civil liberties.

For example, in the event of a war or threat of war, the Communications Act of 1934 authorizes the President to take over or shut down wire and radio communications providers. This law is a crude sledgehammer built for another time and technology. Our bill contains a number of protections to make sure that broad authority cannot be used to shut down the Internet.

First, section 2 of the bill states explicitly:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an

amendment made by this Act, or section 706 of the

Communications Act of 1934, neither the President, the

Director of the National Center for Cybersecurity and

Communications, or any officer or employee of the United

States Government shall have the authority to shut down the

Internet.

Second, the emergency measures in our bill apply in a precise and targeted way only to our most critical infrastructure--vital components of the electric power grid, telecommunications networks, financial systems or other critical infrastructure systems that could cause a national or regional catastrophe if disrupted. This definition would not cover the entire Internet, the Internet backbone, or even entire companies.

In defining covered critical infrastructure, our bill directs the Secretary to consider the consequences of a disruption of a particular system or asset. To constitute a ``national or regional catastrophe,'' the disruption would need to cause a mass casualty event which includes an extraordinary number of fatalities; severe economic consequences; mass evacuations with a prolonged absence; or severe degradation of national security capabilities, including intelligence and defense functions.

When the Committee reported this bill last year, the report clarified what these four factors mean, specifically referencing the current DHS interpretation of ``national or severe economic consequences; mass evacuations with a prolonged absence; or regional catastrophe.'' Under DHS's interpretation, a ``national or regional catastrophe'' includes a combination of the following factors: more than 2,500 prompt fatalities; greater than $25 billion in first-year economic consequences; mass evacuations with a prolonged absence of greater than one month; or severe degradation of the nation's security capabilities.

As our Committee's report noted, we expect the Department to apply this standard in determining which particular systems or assets constitute covered critical infrastructure.

Third, our legislation restricts the President's ability to declare a national cyber emergency to those circumstances in which an ``actual or imminent'' cyber attack would disrupt covered critical infrastructure that would cause these catastrophic consequences.

Fourth, any measures ordered by the President must be ``the least disruptive means feasible.''

Fifth, the authority our bill would grant is time limited. The President could only declare a cyber emergency for 30-day period and only for up to 120 days. After that, Congress would be required to specifically authorize further measures. Any declaration would be subject to congressional oversight, as our bill requires the President to notify Congress regarding the specific threat to our nation's infrastructure, why existing protections are not sufficient, and what specific emergency measures are required to respond to the specific threat.

Sixth, the legislation expressly forbids the designation of any system or asset as covered critical infrastructure ``based solely on activities protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution.''

Seventh, the bill provides for a robust administrative process for an owner or operator to challenge the designation of a system or asset as covered critical infrastructure and expressly permits challenges of a final agency determination in federal court.

Our bill contains protections to prevent the President from denying Americans access to the Internet--even as it provides clear and unambiguous direction to ensure that those most critical systems and assets that rely on the Internet are protected. And, even though experts question whether anyone can technically ``shut down'' the Internet in the United States, we included explicit language prohibiting the President from doing what President Mubarak did.

I would like to stress that the need for Congress to pass a comprehensive cyber security bill is more urgent than ever.

Cyber-based threats to U.S. information infrastructure are increasing, constantly evolving, and growing more dangerous.

In March 2010 the Senate's Sergeant at Arms reported that the computer systems of Congress and the Executive Branch agencies are now under cyber attack an average of 1.8 billion times per month. The annual cost of cyber crime worldwide has climbed to more than $1 trillion.

Coordinated cyber attacks have crippled Estonia, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan and compromised critical infrastructure in countries around the world.

Devastating cyber attacks could disrupt, damage, or even destroy some of our nation's critical infrastructure, such as the electric power grid, oil and gas pipelines, dams, or communications networks. These cyber threats could cause catastrophic damage in the physical world.

Based on media reports, China and Russia already have penetrated the computer systems of America's electric power grid, leaving behind malicious

hidden software that could be activated later to disrupt the grid during a war or other national crisis.

In June 2010, cyber security experts discovered Stuxnet, one of the most sophisticated viruses ever found. Stuxnet was programmed specifically to infiltrate certain industrial control systems, allowing the virus to potentially overwrite commands and to sabotage infected systems. It had the potential to change instructions, commands, or alarm thresholds, which, in turn, could damage, disable, or disrupt equipment supporting the most critical infrastructure.

The private sector is also under attack. In January 2010, Google announced that attacks originating in China had targeted its systems as well as the networks of more than 30 other companies. The attacks on Google sought to access the email accounts of Chinese human rights activists. For other companies, lucrative information such as critical corporate data and software source codes were targeted.

According to a report released last week, coordinated and covert attacks hit more than five major oil, energy, and petrochemical companies. The focus of the intrusions was oil and gas field production systems, as well as financial documents related to field exploration and bidding for new oil and gas leases. The companies also lost information related to their industrial control systems.

In the cyber domain, the advantage lies with our adversaries, for whom success could be achieved by exploiting a single vulnerability that could produce disruptive effects at network speed. Effectively preventing or containing major cyber attacks requires that response plans be in place and roles and authorities of Federal government agencies and entities be clearly delineated in advance.

For too long, our approach to cyber security has been disjointed and uncoordinated. This cannot continue. The United States requires a comprehensive cyber security strategy backed by effective implementation of innovative security measures. There must be strong coordination among law enforcement, intelligence agencies, the military, and the private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure.

This bill would establish the essential point of coordination across the Executive branch. The Office of Cyberspace Policy in the Executive Office of the President would be run by a Senate-confirmed Director who would advise the President on all cyber security matters. The Director would lead and harmonize Federal efforts to secure cyberspace and would develop a strategy that incorporates all elements of cyber security policy. The Director would oversee all Federal activities related to the strategy to ensure efficiency and coordination. The Director would report regularly to Congress to ensure transparency and oversight.

To be clear, the White House official would not be another unaccountable czar. The Cyber Director would be a Senate-confirmed position and thus would testify before Congress. The important responsibilities given to the Director of the Office of Cyberspace Policy related to cyber security are similar to the responsibilities of the current Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The Cyber Director would advise the President and coordinate efforts across the Executive branch to protect and improve our cyber security posture and communications networks. And, by working with a strong operational and tactical partner at the Department of Homeland Security, the Director would help improve the security of Federal and private sector networks.

This strong DHS partner would be the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, or Cyber Center. It would be located within the Department of Homeland Security to elevate and strengthen the Department's cyber security capabilities and authorities. This Center also would be led by a Senate-confirmed Director.

The Cyber Center, anchored at DHS, will close the coordination gaps that currently exist in our disjointed federal cyber security efforts. For day-to-day operations, the Center would use the resources of DHS, and the Center Director would report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security. On interagency matters related to the security of Federal networks, the Director would regularly advise the President--a relationship similar to the Director of the NCTC on counterterrorism matters or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on military issues. These dual relationships would give the Center Director sufficient rank and stature to interact effectively with the heads of other departments and agencies, and with the private sector.

Congress has dealt with complex challenges involving the need for interagency coordination in the past with a similar construct. We have established strong leaders with supporting organizational structures to coordinate and implement action across agencies, while recognizing and respecting disparate agency missions.

The establishment of the National Counterterrorism Center within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is a prime example of a successful reorganization that fused the missions of multiple agencies. The Director of NCTC is responsible for the strategic planning of joint counterterrorism operations, and in this role reports to the President. When implementing the information analysis, integration, and sharing mission of the Center, the Director reports to the Director of National Intelligence. These dual roles provide access to the President on strategic, interagency matters, yet provide NCTC with the structural support and resources of the office of the DNI to complete the day-to- day work of the NCTC. The DHS Cyber Center would replicate this successful model for cyber security.

This bill would establish a public/private partnership to improve cyber security. Working collaboratively with the private sector, the Center would produce and share useful warning, analysis, and threat information with the private sector, other Federal agencies, international partners, and state and local governments. By developing and promoting best practices and providing voluntary technical assistance to the private sector, the Center would improve cyber security across the nation. Best practices developed by the Center would be based on collaboration and information sharing with the private sector. Information shared with the Center by the private sector would be protected.

With respect to the owners and operators of our most critical systems and assets, the bill would mandate compliance with certain risk-based performance metrics to close security gaps. These metrics would apply to vital components of the electric grid, telecommunications networks, financial systems, or other critical infrastructure systems that could cause a national or regional catastrophe if disrupted.

This approach would be similar to the current model that DHS employs with the chemical industry. Rather than setting specific standards, DHS would employ a risk-based approach to evaluating cyber risk, and the owners and operators of covered critical infrastructure would develop a plan for protecting against those risks and mitigating the consequences of an attack.

These owners and operators would be able to choose which security measures to implement to meet applicable risk-based performance metrics. The bill does not authorize any new surveillance authorities or permit the government to ``take over'' private networks. This model would allow for continued innovation and dynamism that are fundamental to the success of the IT sector.

The bill would protect the owners and operators of covered critical infrastructure from punitive damages when they comply with the new risk-based performance measures. Covered critical infrastructure also would be required to report certain significant breaches affecting vital system functions to the Center. Collaboration with the private sector would help develop mitigations for these cyber risks.

The Center also would share information, including threat analysis, with owners and operators of critical infrastructure regarding risks affecting the security of their sectors. The Center would work with sector-specific agencies and other Federal agencies with existing regulatory authority to avoid duplication of requirements, to use existing expertise, and to ensure government resources are employed in the most efficient and effective manner.

With regard to Federal networks, the Federal Information Security Management Act--known as FISMA--gives the Office of Management and Budget broad authority to oversee agency information security measures. In practice, however, FISMA is frequently criticized as a ``paperwork exercise'' that offers little real security and leads to a disjointed cyber security regime in which each Federal agency haphazardly implements its own security measures.

The bill we introduce today would transform FISMA from paper based to real-time responses. It would codify and strengthen DHS authorities to establish complete situational awareness for Federal networks and develop tools to improve resilience of Federal Government systems and networks.

The legislation also would ensure that Federal civilian agencies consider cyber risks in IT procurements instead of relying on the ad hoc approach that dominates civilian government cyber efforts. The bill would charge the Secretary of Homeland Security, working with the private sector and the heads of other affected departments and agencies, with developing a supply chain risk management strategy applicable to Federal procurements. This strategy would emphasize the security of information systems from development to acquisition and throughout their operational life cycle. The strategy would be based, to the maximum extent practicable, on standards developed by the private sector and would direct agencies to use commercial-off-the- shelf solutions to the maximum extent consistent with agency needs.

While the Cyber Center should not be responsible for micromanaging individual procurements or directing investments, we have seen far too often that security is not a primary concern when agencies procure their IT systems. Recommending security investments to OMB and providing strategic guidance on security enhancements early in the development and acquisition process will help ``bake in'' security. Cyber security can no longer be an afterthought in our government agencies.

These improvements in Federal acquisition policy should have beneficial ripple effects in the larger commercial market. As a large customer, the Federal Government can contract with companies to innovate and improve the security of their IT services and products. These innovations can establish new security baselines for services and products offered to the private sector and the general public without mandating specific market outcomes.

Finally, the legislation would direct the Office of Personnel Management to reform the way cyber security personnel are recruited, hired, and trained to ensure that the Federal Government and the private sector have the talent necessary to lead this national effort and protect its own networks. The bill would also provide DHS with temporary hiring and pay flexibilities to assist in the establishment of the Center.

We cannot afford to wait for a ``cyber 9/11'' before our government finally realizes the importance of protecting our digital resources, limiting our vulnerabilities, and mitigating the consequences of penetrations to our networks.

We must be ready. It is vitally important that we build a strong public-private partnership to protect cyberspace. It is a vital engine of our economy, our government, our country and our future.

I urge Congress to support this vitally important legislation.

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

Mr. President, this week the Senate began a debate about nothing less than the future of this country. Next year we face a $1.65 trillion deficit, the third year in a row where the United States will run a deficit of over a trillion dollars. Even more daunting, we are over $14 trillion in total debt.

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, the debt held by the public is projected to reach $18.3 trillion--or 77 percent of GDP--by the end of 2021. This is a problem that truly threatens the well-being of this Nation.

CBO projects that the cost of simply paying the interest on all of this debt will rise to $792 billion--or 3.3 percent of GDP--in 2021. When you are pushing $1 trillion a year in interest payments alone, you are reaching a day when the national government will not have the resources to accomplish even the limited mission delegated to it by the Constitution This is what ADM Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, meant when he testified today that ``our debt is the greatest threat to national security.''

The President could have led on this issue, when he released his budget earlier this week. But he took a pass instead. Apparently he and his Democratic congressional allies have done some polling that tells them two things.

First, the American people are demanding that Washington tackle our annual deficits and skyrocketing debt.

And second, Democrats can benefit politically by standing aside, letting Republicans propose solutions to this problem, and then demagoguing the daylights out of any effort to restrain spending.

The coming debate is going to be a bruising one. But as we go forward, it is critical that we keep one thing in mind. We cannot get out of this hole by taking more of taxpayers' hard-earned money. Our debt and deficit problems exist because Washington spends too much, not because taxes are too low. It is a terrible idea to propose raising taxes by over $1.6 trillion on net over the next 10 years alone. Yet, that is exactly what the Obama administration's budget, released earlier this week, proposes.

I said it earlier this week, and I will say it again. This budget proves once and for all that our deficits and debt are not caused by our taxes being too low.

The President has proposed a net tax increase of over $1.6 trillion. Yet for next year--and every year--of his 10-year budget, he runs a deficit. At their best, the annual deficits dip to roughly $600 billion. Even after these astronomical tax increases, the President is still unable to balance the budget. And there are not many more easy targets for Democrats to tax.

In 2012, in a foolish attempt at class warfare, Democrats are prepared to let the tax rates expire with far reaching consequences for the small business owners who account for half of all small business flow-through income. Those small business owners would see their marginal rates hiked by 17 percent to 24 percent under this budget. In Obamacare they taxed medical devices, insurance plans, prescription drugs, small businesses, and individual Americans. The result--a surprise only to the most hardened ideologues--is the loss of 800,000 jobs according to the Congressional Budget Office. And yet they still can't balance the budget. So who else do they propose to tax?

The bottom line is that there isn't anyone left to tax, unless the President and his Democratic allies are willing to crush the middle class with additional tax burdens. There is only one way out. We need to restrain spending. As the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Paul Ryan, explained, we need to get spending in line with revenue, not the other way around. The analyses of the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, confirm this.

The CBO is the nonpartisan official scorekeeper for Congress. According to its January 2011 Budget and Economic Outlook, from 1971 to 2010, taxes have averaged 18 percent of gross domestic product, or GDP. So in recent history, we have had an average level of taxation of 18 percent of GDP.

Take a look at this chart that was made using CBO's January 2011 document. CBO explains that if no changes in law are made, taxes will go up to 20.8 percent of GDP by 2021, and will average 19.9 percent from 2012 to 2021. Taxes at 20.8 percent of GDP would represent a tax increase of 16 percent from their recent historical average.

CBO also states that if most of the provisions from the December 2010 tax act were made permanent, then ``annual revenues would average about 18 percent of GDP through 2021--which is equal to their 40-year average.'' So, according to CBO, even if all the Bush-era tax rates were permanently extended, taxes would still be high enough when measured against the level of taxation in recent history.

So, if taxes are high enough already, should we raise them anyway? I will go ahead and answer my own rhetorical question. Of course we shouldn't raise taxes any higher.

On August 14, 2008, Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee wrote a Wall Street Journal editorial. In that editorial, Furman and Goolsbee stated that Candidate Obama's tax plan would reduce ``revenues to less than 18.2% of GDP--the level of taxes that prevailed under President Reagan.'' Today, Austan Goolsbee is the Chairman of the Obama administration's Council of Economic Advisers and Jason Furman is the Deputy Director of the Obama administration's National Economic Council. The President must have missed their editorial, because his recently released budget ignores the campaign promises of these top officials, and raises taxes well above their historical levels. As one writer has put it, all of the President's campaign promises seem to come with an expiration date.

As this debate over the debt and deficits rages on, pay close attention to the words that Republicans and Democrats use. You will hear Republicans say that we need spending restraint. By contrast, you will hear Democrats say that we need to deal with the deficit.

Let's be clear. Dealing with the deficit is code for raising taxes. Liberal pundit after liberal pundit will pronounce confidently that you can't deal with the deficit solely with spending restraint. Yet they won't say why, and they won't explain how you can deal with the deficit and debt through tax increases. That is because they can't. If they came clean with the American people, they would have to admit that their intention is to raise taxes on everyone and everything.

As I have already shown, taxes are high enough already, and we should not be raising them even higher.

Yet the bottom line is that rather than dealing seriously with out- of-control spending, tax-and-spend Democrats want to raise taxes to pay for more out-of-control spending. And guess what: If we raised taxes to eliminate the deficit, the current levels of spending would just cause a new deficit to arise.

I have a chart here that demonstrates just how futile it is to raise the top tax rate if the goal is to raise more money. When the top tax rate has been raised over the years, taxes as a percentage of GDP still hovered around their historical average of 18 percent. This held true even when the top tax rate was raised to a confiscatory level of over 90 percent.

The conventional wisdom on the other side of the aisle is that we can simply raise more tax revenue by increasing tax rates. However, the history is pretty clear. This strategy simply does not work. Just take another look at this chart if you don't believe me. Instead of raising tax rates, what we need to do is implement a pro-growth tax policy. That starts with not raising taxes.

For 2 years, we were able to fight off tax increases on small businesses proposed by President Obama and congressional Democratic leadership. However, I have another chart here that shows the relationship between the annual growth of Federal revenues and GDP. As you can see from this chart, when GDP increases, Federal revenues increase. Similarly, when GDP decreases, Federal revenues decrease. This should not be a shocking revelation.

When the economy is growing, the government collects more money in tax revenues because there is more taxable income being earned. The key is to have commonsense, pro-growth tax and regulatory policies. And as I mentioned before, a pro-growth agenda starts with refusing to raise taxes. Part of the difference between Republicans and Democrats on whether to increase taxes comes from different ways of looking at the world. Conservative Republicans look at the money earned by the American people and understand that it belongs to the people. As free men and women, America's citizens have a right to the fruit of their own labors. Americans work too hard--they sacrifice too much--for Washington to blithely raise their taxes to pay for an ever expanding Federal Government.

Yet liberal Democrats have a different view. Listening to President Obama and many congressional Democrats, it is clear that they view the money earned by the American people as the Federal Government's money first. It is only by the grace of the Federal bureaucracy that citizens are given an allowance to live on. This is a huge difference. You hear it when liberals talk about the cost of tax cuts. The cost of tax cuts? Cost to whom? When Democrats talk like this, they are effectively saying that anything you earn is the government's to spend. And it is a cost to the government when they decide to let you keep your money. For most Americans, this is an odd way of looking at the world.

Government costs money when it spends trillions of dollars on who- knows-what. The taxpayer does not cost the government money when he keeps what he earns. Yet this liberal worldview was on clear display in the recent debate about whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax bills.

President Obama and many congressional Democrats said that we shouldn't be giving tax breaks to certain taxpayers. Since when did keeping your own hard-earned money constitute the government giving you anything? That is not how the American people view it. And it is not how I view it.

President Obama and many congressional Democrats viewed a failure to increase taxes as a giveaway to taxpayers that increased the deficit. Republicans view the job-killing tax increase with nearly 10 percent unemployment as a terrible idea. The way to deal with the deficit is not to raise taxes. The way to deal with the deficit is to live within our means, as families and individuals do across America. The Federal Government should only spend what it takes in.

The President and his allies like to say they inherited these deficits. That is only a half truth. They inherited some debt and deficits. But they have helped create much more. For example, nearly $1 trillion was added to our debt by President Obama's partisan stimulus bill. That bill was loaded with pent-up Democratic agenda items and was sold with the promise that it would keep unemployment below 8 percent. We all know that by the President's own standard the stimulus bill has failed miserably. Unemployment has been at or above 9 percent for the last 21 months. That stimulus debt was not inherited by President Obama, it was created by President Obama, and he is bequeathing it to all of our children and grandchildren.

The numbers do not lie. When Democrats took over Washington, it was like setting Homer Simpson loose at an all-you-can-eat buffet. For too long, the desire of unions and government workers and special interest groups to create new programs and grow the size of government had gone unfulfilled, and when they finally seized the reins of power in 2008, liberal Democrats went hog wild. Our Nation's deficit has gone from $161 billion in 2007, when Democrats took over control of Congress-- remember, they had 2 years before President Obama even got elected. The Democrats were in control of Congress. It went from $161 billion in 2007 to $1.65 trillion in 2011.

With respect to the debt, when congressional Democrats took over control of Congress in 2007, the debt was $8.68 trillion. It is now over $14 trillion. So when Democrats are talking about what a bad situation they inherited, let's remember that these folks have been in charge of Congress for the last 4 years. They acted as though the bills on their spending would never come due. And like a college student who maxed out his parent's credit card, Democrats are now looking for someone to bail them out.

Unfortunately, they are looking to the American taxpayers to foot the bill. This cannot happen. The American taxpayer is already overburdened. Citizens are not going to stand for tax hikes when spending restraint is called for. The bottom line is simple. We cannot tax our way out of this problem. I personally will resist any effort to do so.

That is one of the reasons why I am for a balanced budget constitutional amendment. I have found Congress is incapable, fiscally incapable, of getting this mess under control. It is hard to believe we are that incapable, but we are. So we need to put some restraints on Congress, and the best way to do that, in my opinion, is a balanced budget amendment. I think that would be the best way.

There are some who are looking at putting caps on spending, and that sounds good, except for one thing. If you break the caps, you have got to increase taxes. I think we would find ourselves increasing taxes all the time around here, and that is a big mistake as far as I am concerned. So I am very strongly for the balanced budget constitutional amendment. I believe with the mess we are in, good people on both sides of the aisle ought to be interested as well.

The last time I brought up the balanced budget amendment, we had 66 votes for it in the Senate. It passed the House overwhelmingly. If we had had one more vote back in 1997 we would have had a different situation today, because the balanced budget constitutional amendment would have passed, and I believe 38 States would have ratified it in a very quick fashion, certainly within a year or so.

Had that happened, we would not be in the mess we are in today. We are in a terrible mess. One of the reasons is Congress cannot get its fiscal house in order, and the reason it cannot is because of what I have been talking about. I think it is going to take restraints that the balanced budget amendment would bring to force Congress to have to live within its means or at least vote to break the budget.

Most people who spend do not want that provision, because they know when they vote to break the budget, their constituents are going to see that and they may not be here the next election. So as much as I would prefer to not have any artificial approach, I have come to the conclusion that Congress plain cannot handle its own problems. It does not have the fiscal restraint to do it.

A balanced budget amendment would be a constitutional amendment, locked into our beloved Constitution. It would, like all of the States in this country, except Vermont, require us to balance the budget or at least show a reason why not and to vote so that we have to vote on why not.

Germany has a balanced budget amendment. They meet those restraints. Switzerland has a balanced budget amendment. They meet those restraints. If they can do it, why can't we? I think we have got to get real around here and start doing some things that will help save the country, rather than push it right into bankruptcy.

We spend too much. Congress and the President pushed Build America Bonds. Why do you think they did that? The government is going to pay-- it has been paying 35 percent on those bonds. Guess who pays that 35 percent. All of the States that have lived with fiscal restraint will be paying for the profligacy of States that do not live with fiscal restraint. That is not the way to go. It is not fair to the States that are careful with their money. We know which States they are. In almost every case, they are States that are dominated by my friends on the other side. The fact is, I am totally opposed to this proposal.

In this budget, the President wants to make these bonds permanent, while bringing down the 35 percent government match to 28 percent. But think about that. That is still 28 percent from American taxpayers, most of whom have lived with fiscal restraint in their respective States, to help States that have not and that probably will not behave responsibly. As long as they can get free money from the government, why not, in their eyes?

Some of these states are in such dire straits that even some of these Governors who have been big raging liberals in the past are starting to say, we have got to do something about it. I want to pay particular praise to them. I hope they will get spending under control, because their lack of fiscal restraint and our lack of fiscal restraint here is hurting our country.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the filing deadline for second-degree amendments be extended up until the cloture vote.

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

Mr. President, Senator Boxer--and not everybody knows this--is the author of the passengers' bill of rights. It has been an obsession of hers. It is not about helping airlines; it is about helping human beings. That has been a long process on the committee. It is in the bill. It is a very good part. She is responsible for all of that.

When Senator Boxer talks about more flights to the West, she echoes my deepest thinking. It is hard sometimes for people to understand. We are the East, and we get the feeling that everything happens in the East. But the fact is, the West is growing and the East is not. All of our slots are predicated on the fact that everybody lives in the East. Yes, there are some people out West--well, there are a lot more people out West. Los Angeles is huge beyond belief. That happens to be the home of Senator Boxer. But there are a lot of cities out there which don't get service and should have service. We have tried to address that in this bill.

The slots issue has been a very difficult one in the bill. But we have tried to address that by allowing the Department of Transportation to say: Are they getting enough? Is DC overcrowded or is it not? If it isn't, then they allow more to come on.

I enormously appreciate Senator Boxer in general. She chairs an important committee, but she comes to our hearings and always makes enormous contributions. On this bill of rights she is the author, which puts her right up there with the Founding Fathers.

Madam President, I wish to make a couple of observations. First of all, I apologize to all of our colleagues having to postpone cloture and precloture votes. What has happened is a number of folks have come in at the very last second and asked for changes. That is not usually the way committee business is done. We have been on this for a number of years. But we have to face the reality of that fact. We want to get cloture, and we want the bill to pass.

I say to my friend from Arizona that I will work with him and with-- whether it is GAO, DOT, or whomever we decide to work with or both, which we can obviously do and which is in the legislation; the GAO is automatic for any Member--that I will work to try and resolve this problem as best as I can.

There are many problems wandering around, but the basis of the bill, the structure of the bill, the overall bill is actually not just about slots. That is a relatively small part. It has been virtually all of the conversation and the debate.

As Senator Hutchison pointed out, a new air traffic control system, airline safety, all kinds of other things, are so predominantly important that we have had to proceed in this way to try to accommodate our colleagues, and that we will continue to try to do.

Madam President, I wish to echo what Senator Hutchison has just said. In the process of legislation, if you look at it logically, you do it over a period of years--1 or 2--or a number of months, and people get their amendments in. That has not been the case here. On the other hand, one has to recognize that people feel very strongly, and when Senators feel very strongly, they have that right, and they have the right to try, therefore, to affect the legislation even though it may be at the very last moment. I think everybody is acting in good faith.

I appreciate very much the Senator from Washington, Maria Cantwell, because she has given up a lot and she has also been very cooperative. She is going to be the new chair of the aviation subcommittee, which I look forward to and appreciate. I also appreciate the leadership of Senator Hutchison and all other Members--the Senator from Virginia whose time I have taken, Senator Wyden--who have participated in trying to work this out. It is not a beautiful process, but it is one that throughout the Senate has been solid and strong, and it needs to be voted for when that time comes. As I said, slots are not the only issue. The other issues are huge, and they are resolved without any contentiousness at all. So in that spirit of really thanking all who fought for what they have a right to fight for and saying that we have tried to respond as best we could--and if nobody is entirely happy, that probably means it is a good bill, a good approach--I wish to thank everyone.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in about 5 minutes, we are going to be, hopefully, voting for cloture on the underlying bill, the basic FAA bill, which has been the product of an awful lot of work. I think, generally speaking, we have tried to bring everybody in. Senators do have rights, and as a bill comes closer to a cloture vote or passage vote, some of those rights are exercised, which then complicates things. On the other hand, it is what the system is, and people ought to have those rights. You cannot ask everybody to sort of sit back and think through a whole bill. Something occurs to them at the last moment, and they need to come down and address that. We have tried to do that.

I think we are pretty close to a slots amendment agreement. Not everybody is happy about it, but everybody has

given up and everybody has gotten from it.

So we will have this vote, and then we will continue work on various aspects of the bill. I hope we can get it done tonight from the Senate side. Then we have to go negotiate with the House, and their bill is quite different.

But what is interesting about the aviation bill, it truly does affect America vastly. I do not know how many times I have said it employs 11 million people. Actually, it employs, directly and indirectly, probably closer to 13 million people, and it affects people's lives in every single way. They are trying to build a high-speed rail system. You cannot build a high-speed interstate system. You can take a chance at it, but it does not work very well.

So travel by aviation is how people get to where they want to go. It is a complicated industry. Costs go up. Sometimes it is because of fuel. Passengers are held on tarmacs. Sometimes it is because there is just congestion or there is a crisis at the airport of some sort. Passengers, when they are on their way from one place to another, do not sort of think about the problems the airline industry or airports are going through. They just think about the fact that they are being inconvenienced, if, in fact, they are being inconvenienced.

But I think it is a very good bill, and it has been worked on a very long time by myself and an extraordinarily wonderful Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison, whom I call cochair of the Commerce Committee, because she is.

People have operated in good faith. We have had a lot of scrums and huddles about on the Senate floor. But that is the way legislation probably needs to work. It is a very complicated bill, but it is a bill that I think we will get cloture on, and people should actually be very anxious to vote for it when it comes to final passage.

I will give a talk about that. But I just remind people again, we have an air traffic control system which is so antiquated that there are actually very many near misses in the sky because we are using a radar system and planes often come very close to running into each other on the tarmac. It is a very old system. It is a 50-year-old system. This bill will fix that and make it safer for people to travel. More planes can take off and fly.

So I hope we invoke cloture at 2 o'clock, and then we will continue to work on the bill. It is important for America, and it is important to satisfy as many people as we possibly can.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask to move to the vote.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much. I thank him. I agree with what the Senator from Oregon is saying. I want to be helpful, and we will continue to be helpful. There are some in positions not to be helpful and are not being helpful. I understand that. Such is life. I will continue to be helpful on this issue, not just on the substance because he has been so important in the resolution of what he mentioned at the very end, the slots. He has been a nonstop peacemaker, sort of the Secretary General of the UN. He really has. I respect that, and I appreciate it.

This is complicated. It is emotional. He has been great. I will continue to work with him on this issue to try and get to our mutual goal.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon. I like what he said.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of the McCain amendment No. 4 and proceed to a vote in relation to that amendment; that upon disposition of the McCain amendment, the Senate resume consideration of the Paul amendment No. 18 and there be 4 minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to that amendment; that no amendments be in order to the amendments prior to the votes; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

I move to table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of Senator Brown of Ohio, to call up the Brown-Portman amendment No. 105 to the Ensign amendment No. 32.

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

I yield back my time on our side.

Amendment No. 105

I move to table and ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I am aware of these agreements.

I am aware that the Senator has filed an amendment on this issue, and I understand his concerns about this issue and its effect on his constituents.

I would be glad to continue working with the Senator on this issue, and I appreciate his work to ensure that there is fairness in this regard.

Mr. President, I believe this bill is fundamental to our Nation's long-term economic competitiveness. It will create good- paying jobs across the country. It will improve the safety and efficiency of our Nation's air transportation system. And it will help to make sure the United States remains the global leader in aviation.

As we approach a final vote on the FAA reauthorization, I want to close by touching briefly on why this is so important--and why we have spent 3 weeks working on this bill.

This FAA reauthorization is about more than aviation, it is about stimulating the economy and securing jobs and retaining jobs.

The aviation sector supports over $1 trillion in economic activity and over 11 million jobs in the United States. This bill will support hundreds of thousands of aviation jobs annually. Moreover, it is critical to the businesses that rely on aviation and will provide a base for financial success in an increasingly global economy.

This bill is about improving commercial airline service to small and rural communities, making sure all areas of the country have adequate access to the Nation's air transportation network.

It also establishes better consumer rights protections for travelers, giving passengers a more consistent and improved air travel experience.

Ultimately, it is about improving safety and modernizing our system.

In other words, it is about people's lives every day--the safety of our skies for passengers and their families is critical and we must get this right.

Statistically, the United States has the safest air transportation system in the world. But statistics do not always tell the whole story.

It has been just over 2 years since the crash of Flight 3407 in Buffalo, NY, took the lives of 50 people. This tragedy reminds us that we must remain vigilant in making the national airspace system as safe as possible.

Although we were able to take important steps last August to improve pilot training and fatigue, this bill still has several critical provisions that will further improve the safety of our skies.

Modernizing the air traffic control system will not just make our skies more efficient, it represents a quantum leap forward for aviation safety by providing our air traffic controllers and pilots' real-time traffic and weather information.

The bill also takes steps to strengthen inspections of airline operations, require better oversight of foreign repair stations, and improve helicopter emergency service operations.

This bill is also about equality and economic stability. It will provide needed resources to airports large and small, urban and rural.

Although the U.S. airline industry has begun to recover from the recent economic downturn, hundreds of rural communities across our country continue to struggle.

The future of small communities' economic standing depends on access to air service.

I have witnessed firsthand the positive impact that aviation has made on my home State of West Virginia, and I have seen time and time again how important a lifeline it is for local communities.

The Federal Government must continue the commitment it made when the industry deregulated to provide the resources and tools small communities need to attract adequate air service.

Our legislation accomplishes this by building on existing programs and strengthening them with appropriate reforms.

This bill also strengthens passenger protections by incorporating a passenger bill of rights to deal with the most serious flight delays and cancellations.

Passengers have had it with endless delays--especially when they are stuck on the tarmac. They have had it with being overlooked and dismissed by the aviation system.

The Department of Transportation, DOT, has already begun implementing similar measures and seen great success--this legislation makes certain the Federal Government continues to focus on passengers' rights.

Our air traffic control system is outdated and strained beyond its capacity.

America's air traffic control network is still using WWII-era technology. We are behind Mongolia, and that is unacceptable.

The Next Generation Air Transportation System, NextGen, will save our economy billions by creating additional capacity and more direct routes. This will allow aircraft to move more efficiently and effectively.

Drastic reductions in fuel consumption will reduce carbon and noise emissions in the aviation sector.

And as I noted before, NextGen will dramatically improve safety.

A modern air traffic control system will provide pilots and air traffic controllers with better situational awareness--giving them the tools to see other aircraft and detailed weather maps in real time.

But achieving a modernized air transportation system requires sustained focus and substantial resources.

This reauthorization bill takes concrete steps to accelerate implementation of a modern, satellite based air traffic control system so we can begin to reap these benefits now.

We must move boldly or risk losing our leadership in the world. Over the 3 weeks, I have spoken about the primary goals we set out to achieve with this bill: 1, to address critical safety concerns; 2, to establish a clear roadmap for the implementation of NextGen and accelerate the FAA's key modernization programs; 3, to invest in airport infrastructure; and 4, to continue improving small communities' access to the Nation's aviation system.

I am proud of how far we have come. I also want to thank Senator Hutchison, the ranking member of the Commerce Committee and my able partner, for her work on this bill. It is truly a bipartisan bill that reflects a shared vision and goal of making sure the United States continues to have the safest, most efficient, and most modern aviation system possible.

This bill passed 93 to 0 last year. I know a few of my colleagues have had substantial differences over the issue of slots at National Airport. But this issue is minor compared to the benefits provided by the larger bill.

Flights at National Airport should not bring down a bill that is critical to so many Americans and supports so many jobs.

I urge my colleagues to move forward and give the FAA the tools, the resources, the direction, and the deadlines to make sure the agency can provide effective oversight of the aviation industry.

I urge my colleagues to support reauthorization and advance our system now. We cannot afford to wait any longer.

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

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

Mr. President, in a few minutes, I will ask the Senate to proceed to the consideration of S. 380. S. 380 extends the Andean Trade Preference Act. But first I would like to make a few comments about the importance of this trade preference act.

I am very aware that a lot is going on in the world and there is upheaval in the Middle East and there is a lot going on on both sides of the aisle on spending, and I am very aware of what has dominated the news and the attention of the Congress and the American people. I want to talk for a few minutes about the importance of the Andean Trade Preference Act and the need to reauthorize it.

I remind my colleagues that the Andean Trade Preference Act was first enacted by President George Herbert Walker Bush as a way to boost the licit economies of several Andean nations that were major producers of illegal drugs. Over the past two decades, this program has been supported by Democratic and Republican Presidents, it has been reauthorized by Democratic and Republican Congresses, and it has been widely recognized as a dramatic success--creating jobs for our workers, who can sell cheaper imports to American consumers as a result of these trade preferences, while also supporting the economic development of strategically important countries in our hemisphere.

One of these countries is Colombia. We have been rightly focused on other parts of the world over the past decade, but one of the untold success stories is Colombia's transformation from a failed state to a thriving democracy. It has been one of the world's great stories and one of the greatest bipartisan triumphs of U.S. foreign policy in recent memory.

Through the courage and perseverance of the Colombian people, the government and armed forces of Colombia took their country back from terrorists and drug traffickers and warlords who murdered the innocent indiscriminately and sowed our society with illegal drugs. We were with them every step of the way. It was President Bill Clinton, together with a Republican Congress, who first enacted Plan Colombia, and it was President George W. Bush, initially with a Democratic Congress, who expanded Plan Colombia.

Over the past decade, the U.S. taxpayer has invested more than $8 billion to help Colombia win its war, and it has been some of the best money we have ever spent on a national security program. Remember, the Plan Colombia and the war, where we helped the Colombians take back their country from FARC and the terrorists and drug dealers, were to prevent drugs from coming to the United States of America, where the demand was created.

So I am proud that as an act of generosity and help on the part of the American people, it was in America's national security interest to see Colombia not become a failed state, which it almost was 10 years ago.

The Andean Trade Preference Act has been a critical component of this effort. It has provided Colombia, along with other Andean nations, essential open access to our markets that has catalyzed their success. What is more, the vast majority of the products these countries are exporting to us Americans barely produce at all, such as cut flowers. So it provides a huge benefit for our partners, with little competition or displacement for our workers.

Unfortunately, after the long record of bipartisan support for this successful and vital program, the last Congress did something deeply shortsighted and terrible: Rather than extend the trade preferences, as previous Congresses have done, it made their passage and the passage of other vital free-trade measures conditional on the extension of a whole array of new government spending--spending our country cannot afford.

As a result, the Andean Trade Preference Act expired last weekend and with it the privileged market access that is so vital to key Andean partners, such as Colombia. What is even more terrible, we are failing Colombia at the worst of all possible times, as it is struggling to recover and rebuild from massive flooding. I saw with my own eyes the massive flooding, where hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced. They have been devastated, and the estimated cost to rebuild is several billion dollars.

But it is even worse than that. Not only has this Congress denied Colombians vital trade preferences at a time when their country is literally underwater, it has done so amid the continued failure to ratify the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. This agreement mainly benefits us, leveling the playing field for U.S. workers seeking access to Colombian markets.

But the signal of strategic commitment that it sends to Colombia can't be understated. By failing for 5 straight years now to pass a Colombia Free Trade Agreement, we are sending the opposite signal--that the United States is an unreliable and untrustworthy ally and that we seem to be incapable of rising above our own domestic political differences to consolidate our strategic partnership with one of our best friends in the world. It is sad.

No trade agreement during a time of great need due to a natural disaster, and how have the Congress and the administration responded? By failing to extend critical trade preferences for Colombia and our other Andean friends. We have kicked an ally while they are down and right when they need us most. Colombian officials tell me that without these trade preferences, their cut flower industry, which is one of the pillars of the Colombian economy, could contract by 15 to 20 percent in the coming weeks.

Now is the time to right this wrong. Now is the time to come together and extend the Trade Preference Act--by itself, on its own, and on its merits, just as Congresses before us have done. This legislation will do that. It will extend the privileged market access for our Andean friends until November 30 of next year. After we have invested so much in the success of the Andean region--investments that have earned us enormous goodwill and gratitude--why would we do anything to call our friendship into question? Why would we do anything that harms our allies? We cannot afford not to extend the Andean Trade Preference Act.

Let me also explain something to my colleagues. Before we went out of session last year, we made an agreement--and the Senator from Ohio, whom I see on the floor and who was one of the negotiators--that the trade adjustment assistance would be extended along with the Andean Trade Preference Act. The interesting thing about that extension is that it was not only an extension of the trade adjustment assistance as it was prior to the stimulus being passed, but also after. In other words, the trade adjustment assistance had gone up to some $2.6 billion, an additional $620 million for the remainder of this year. So it is in existence today, with $1 billion being spent on various programs. There is a GAO study that severely questions these multiple employment and training programs that are in existence today. They talk about the $18 billion being spent to administer 47 programs, an increase of 3 programs and roughly $5 billion since their last reporting.

What I am asking my colleagues who are supportive of the TAA is to agree to an extension of the Andean Trade Preference Agreement in return for our extension, our agreement to extend the trade adjustment assistance at the level of pre-stimulus. The stimulus was supposedly advertised as a one-shot deal. So why should we increase trade adjustment assistance in keeping with the enactment of the stimulus package? Now that the stimulus is supposedly over, can't we go back to previous levels of adjustment assistance?

I wish to make the record perfectly clear: This proposal of killing off trade adjustment assistance is in being as we speak today. We are saying we don't want the increase that was put in in 2009 as a result of the stimulus package.

Things are not great in our Western Hemisphere. We have a return of Danny Ortega in Nicaragua, we have Hugo Chavez continuing to consolidate power in Venezuela. We are seeing other nations in the region--and I won't enumerate them--that are becoming more and more dictatorial, totalitarian, and anti-American. So when we don't extend the ATPA, the signal to our friends and our adversaries in the region is very clear: You can't count on the United States of America to keep its solemn agreements negotiated and ratified by Republican and Democratic Presidents and Congresses.

I understand and appreciate and respect the Senator from Ohio, the Senator from Pennsylvania, and the Senator from Montana and their dedication to trade adjustment assistance. I am not seeking to end TAA. We are seeking to leave TAA at its previous level prior to the stimulus package being enacted. I don't understand why that shouldn't be sufficient in this era of huge deficits and debts.

I ask my friend from Ohio and those on the other side of the aisle who oppose a long-term extension--who oppose the Andean Trade Preference Act being extended--that we would agree to the extension of the trade adjustment assistance only at the level where it was before. Isn't that reasonable? Isn't that reasonable? It is $1 billion a year. It is $1 billion a year that is going to be allowed under the TAA.

Again, I understand there are a lot of things going on in the world. There are a lot of things going on domestically. There are a lot of things happening, but shouldn't we pay attention to our friends, our little friends who helped us so much in this war on drugs? If they had become, as they nearly did 10 years ago, a failed state, the consequences to the United States national security would have been profound. We are watching the violence in Mexico and we are alarmed by it, including the death of a DEA agent and the wounding of another one in the last couple of days in Mexico. My friends, that was a Sunday school picnic compared to what was going on in Colombia before we helped them with the Andean Trade Preference Agreement. I urge my colleagues to please consider at least a short-term extension of this ATPA, along with the basic TAA, at least to give these people an opportunity to recover from the devastation they have experienced.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 380. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, all I can say to my friend from Ohio is we have deep sympathy for the plight of the citizens of Ohio who have been very hard hit in this economic disaster that this Nation has undergone in the last couple of years. There has been enormous loss of jobs and income on the part of the citizens of Ohio, and particularly that part of the country. I would also argue that my home State of Arizona has suffered rather dramatically as well.

But does it make sense to dramatically increase any program at this particular time? We are already spending $1 billion a year. That seems to be a significant amount of money.

I would also point out that a lot of these training programs have drawn scrutiny and even criticism from the GAO. This criticism has been kind of telling. It says:

In fiscal year 2009, nine Federal agencies spent $18

billion to administer 47 programs, an increase of three

programs and roughly $5 billion since they reported in 2003.

So I don't think we could see tangible benefits from the trade adjustment assistance. But we are willing, I say to my friend from Ohio, to continue to support a $1 billion program per year for trade adjustment assistance when we are slashing vital programs that people know are far--we are all having to make sacrifices. Can't my friend from Ohio be satisfied with $1 billion for trade adjustment assistance?

Again, I wish to say, we do have problems in our hemisphere. We do have Brazilians striking out on a new and independent course. We have Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia, we have these countries that are looking on us as either an adversary or an enemy, depending on which country we are talking about. So the message we are sending by not at least extending this agreement I think is a terrible one, and I ask my friend from Ohio to reconsider.

I also wish to say this: The President of the United States and the White House should be weighing in on this. The President of the United States has said he wants the Korea Free Trade Agreement and we want the ``Colombian and Panamanian Free Trade Agreement'' as well.

Well, if they want that, should they not want to extend the trade preferences that were negotiated by President Bush and extended under President Clinton? Should we not want that--and Republican and Democratic Congresses alike?

I have taken too much time of this body. Again, I ask my friend from Ohio to reconsider, negotiate, do whatever we can before we continue to send this terrible message to our friends in the hemisphere who have literally laid down their lives in the war against drugs, which we have felt is in vital U.S. national security interests.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I certainly didn't want to get too much into this debate because the fact is that GAO concluded:

Based on our survey of agency officials, we determined that

only 5 of the 47 programs have had impact studies that assess

whether the program is responsible for improving employment

outcomes. The five impact studies generally found that the

effects of participation were not consistent across programs,

with only some demonstrating positive impacts that tended to

be small, inconclusive or restricted to short-term impacts.

We are talking about an additional $1.6 billion. We can't do that. Why in the world the Senator from Ohio and other Senators from his part of the country were satisfied for years with a TAA of roughly $1 billion and now are not satisfied with that in these times of economic difficulties confounds me. It is a sad day for our friends in Colombia and the Andes who have sacrificed so much on our behalf. I object.

Mr. President, I also wish to take some time to talk about a real crisis looming in front of us, which is the possibility of a Federal Government shutdown.

I have lived through a Federal Government shutdown, and I can tell you, whether you are someone who is trying to get on Social Security or Medicare, whether you are living near a toxic waste dump that suddenly doesn't get cleaned up, whether you are concerned about enforcement at the border--I could go on and on--there will be a lot of suffering.

If you are a Federal employee who works for a living, you will not get paid. Mr. President, for me, the issue is, if Federal employees do not get paid, then why on Earth should Members of Congress get paid? We are Federal employees. We work for the government at the pleasure of the people. Sometimes they are not so happy about it and they don't get much pleasure, but the fact is that we are elected and we work as U.S. Senators, and our paychecks come from the Federal Treasury. Why should we get paid if we

fail to reach an agreement to do the basic work of keeping this government open?

Years ago, when we faced this, it was with Speaker Gingrich, who brought it on. I hate to say that, but I am very concerned that we are going to see a repeat from the Republican House. Let me tell you the reason. We had an election--and, boy, I noticed that one in 2010 because I was in it. My Republican friends in the House are fond of saying ``we won.'' They did take back the House. They did. They won the House. Guess what. They did not take back the Senate. The Democrats have a clear majority here. The President is still the President, and he is a Democrat. People will have their say, and we will get to that in 2012.

Here is the point. There are three parts of the government that are involved in the budget showdown, the budget dialog. Those three parts are the House--and we know where they are. They came up with $60 billion worth of cuts. And then you have a bill that they wrote, H.R. 1, that not only had $60 billion worth of cuts but all of these extraneous legislative riders that proclaimed the EPA has to stop the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay; that EPA can no longer enforce the Clean Air Act relating to certain types of pollution; that there will be no more money going to Planned Parenthood--no matter that they serve 5 million people and do all the necessary things to stop women's health problems, such as STDs--no, they are zeroed out. So there is a vendetta against them and against National Public Radio. That is what is in H.R. 1.

H.R. 1 was voted on here, and it did not pass. Now we are sitting down with our colleagues to try to work on the budget, not these extraneous riders. If you want to repeal the Clean Air Act, have the guts to come here, put it on the floor, send it through the committees, and let's see where you get. You won't get very far. That is why they are trying to do it through the back door. Let's have a budget bill.

I believe that the Democrats, although we control two-thirds of the government--a third is the House, a third is the Senate, and a third is the White House--we are willing to meet them about halfway. Well, that is fair. That is more than fair. But we have rallies by the extreme rightwing. They have every right to do it, and I welcome them with open arms, but they do not speak for the majority of the people.

I want to get back to why I think it is important that these Members of Congress who are talking very openly about a shutdown have some skin in the game. Let them have to suffer no paychecks. Why should others suffer no paychecks, whether you are someone who works the parks or someone who works at Social Security or Medicare or someone who cleans up toxic waste sites or someone who works on the border. There isn't going to be any penalty for them.

I can only say that it has been 30 days--here it is on the chart-- since the Senate passed a bill that said: No budget, no pay. No raising the debt ceiling, no pay. That is what it said. We sent it over to the House, and what has Mr. Boehner done with that bill? Nothing. Now, that is plenty of time to talk about doing away with Planned Parenthood and about all these things they want to do to harm women's health. They want to repeal the entire health care bill. I guess now they want to refund the money or get back the money the seniors got to help them pay for prescription drugs. I guess they don't think it is good to be able to keep your kid on your policy until they are 26. I guess they think it is fine for the insurance companies to kick you out when you get sick. When it comes to saying we will not get paid if there is a shutdown, he has not taken up this bill. Thirty days.

I intend to be on this floor every day--31, 32, 33, whatever the days are. That is plenty of time.

By the way, there is a bill by Congressman Moran. Eric Cantor said we should not get paid. I don't know if you know what they did, Mr. President. They wrote a bill that said we won't get paid, but in that bill, it says H.R. 1 will be deemed having passed if the Senate doesn't pass it by April 6. So they have taken the most extreme bill in American history, with cuts that experts say--including Mark Zandi, a Republican economist--will lose us 700,000 jobs, a bill that is so extreme that it tells the EPA it can't enforce the law, and then they attach to it the ``no budget, no pay.'' Not good enough. H.R. 1 is not passing. They can say they deem it passed. That is like my saying I deem every bill that I write passed.

I have written a lot of bills, including the Violence Against Children Act. Bills that I have passed give tax breaks to people who work at home. I have had bill upon bill. I would love to say that if we don't act on it, I deem it passed. What are they talking about over there? It is odd behavior. It is odd. I don't know what else to say.

By the way, we have 15 people on our bill. They are: Senators Casey, Manchin, Tester, Nelson of Nebraska, Bennet, Warner, Wyden, Coons, Harkin, Hagan, Menendez, Stabenow, Merkley, Rockefeller, and you, Mr. President, Sherrod Brown of Ohio. We are willing to say, if there is no budget deal, we should not get paid.

I do not know whether the American people understand this, but if they did, I think they would be very upset because we have a special statute that protects our pay. Our staff is not protected. To my knowledge, the people who work here are not protected. Members of Congress and the President are protected in the case of a shutdown. There is a special statute. They get paid.

All we are saying is that is wrong. If this government shuts down, that is wrong or, if we fail to raise the debt ceiling and we start not making our payments and defaulting and America goes into a cycle we have never seen before, we do not deserve a penny of pay.

By the way, our bill says no retroactivity either. The American people have a right to expect us to work. Social Security checks must continue to arrive. Veterans must receive their benefits. Passports have to be issued. Superfund sites have to be cleaned. Oil wells have to be inspected. Export licenses must be granted. Our troops must be paid. If we fail to keep the government open because of politics, because some group is rallying--I do not care what end of the spectrum they are from--if we cave to that kind of pressure, we do not deserve to be paid. It is as simple as that. We should be treated like any other Federal employee--no better, no worse.

This is so deja vu because, in 1995, similar legislation passed the Senate. But guess what. It never passed the House.

We have a Member of Congress complaining that he does not make enough money. Let's talk about that, I say to everybody. In a video, tea party-described Republican Congressman Sean Duffy of Wisconsin said he could not pay his bills on his $174,000 salary.

Now listen, he has a lot of compassion for himself, but he does not seem to have that compassion for people who earn $50,000 or $60,000 or $40,000 or $20,000--a lot less than he makes. But he says it is real tough to live on $174,000. I know he has a big family. God bless each and every one of them. But let us not be so selfish. If you have compassion for yourself, have it for your fellow human beings. No budget, no pay, Mr. Duffy. I am sorry.

If our colleagues over there who are very extreme--and I know there was a big article that Democrats are calling the budget proposals over there extreme. They are. If they are going to stand on that far right line and hurt the women of this country and hurt the families of this country and hurt the children of this country and hurt the seniors of this country and they are not willing to meet us halfway when they only control one-third of the government and they do not agree and this government shuts down, yes, Mr. Duffy, you should not get your pay. We need to have the same pain inflicted on us as is inflicted on others.

The Speaker and Eric Cantor can say anything they want over there. They can say whatever they want. Free speech, absolutely. But their actions speak louder than their words. When they say, oh, they don't think they should get paid, but they fail to pass a freestanding bill as we did, they are not serious at all. They put it in a bill that is ridiculous on its face. I never heard of passing a bill that says another bill is deemed law. Yes, it is hard for me to explain that.

Anyone who studies how the Federal Government works knows we pass

these bills and then we send them to the President and then they are the law. What he says is, even though we already voted down H.R. 1, if we do not pass something else, H.R. 1 is deemed to have passed and then it goes to the President. This makes no sense. It is a new way of passing bills that is made up by the Republicans in the House.

It is interesting that the Members whose paychecks the Speaker is protecting are the same ones who are saying we should have a government shutdown. Today we know the tea party is holding a rally demanding a government shutdown if H.R. 1, with all its political vendettas against women and children and families--that, in fact, there ought to be a shutdown if H.R. 1 does not pass, even though a leading Republican economist, Mark Zandi, said it would cost us 700,000 jobs.

The Senate voted down H.R. 1. It only got 44 votes. Wake up and smell the roses. It is gone. H.R. 1 will never rear its head again. So if you are rallying for a bill that only got 44 votes, that makes no sense. Why not rally to call on us to come together, to meet in the middle, to compromise? That is what the American people want. Do you think I want to meet the Republicans in the middle and slash the type of programs we have to slash? No; I am very unhappy about it, but I am willing to do it for the good of the country. Then let the American people decide in the next election if these are the priorities they share.

H.R. 1 would kick hundreds of thousands of kids out of Head Start. It would stop tens of thousands from getting grants to go to college. How does that make us stronger? It does not.

Representative Tom Rooney, a Republican from Florida, said: I don't see how we can avoid a shutdown. I have news for him. We can by working together, by crafting a budget where the numbers are right in the middle, and then any of these political vendettas should come back in the form of other legislation.

Congresswoman Martha Roby said yesterday the tea party ``would not settle for a split-the-baby strategy,'' which I guess means she is not for compromising. It is my way or the highway. I want to ask the American people rhetorically: Is that fair? The people who run one- third of the government want 100 percent of it their way. I do not think so. I do not think it would work that way in a family. That is not right. They control one-third of the government and they want 100 percent of what they want. It is not right on its face.

Seventy-three percent of the American people say a government shutdown would be a bad thing for our country. So when the tea party says: Shut down the government if we don't get 100 percent of what we want, they are out of touch.

We will do our part. I am glad Speaker Boehner is back at the negotiating table, but I have to say, we are not going to get anywhere if anyone says at that table: My way or the highway. That is over.

H.R. 1 is gone--because you pass a bill that says if the Senate does not act and pass the bill it is deemed law sounds like an April fool's joke. Today is the 31st. Maybe that is what it is, an April fool's joke. Again, I do not know how they came up with this idea.

Where we are is very clear. We are in a situation where we hope the government will not shut down, but yet there are Members in the House who are threatening a shutdown. We have a situation where 30 days ago we passed no budget, no pay for Members of Congress and the President, and they still have not taken it up.

We sent a letter to Speaker Boehner. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter to Speaker Boehner.

Mr. President, we call on him and say: It has been 30 days, let's get our act together. We need to feel the pain ourselves just as all the others will feel the pain.