Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medical FSA Improvement Act of 2011. I am joined in this effort by Senator Enzi and I thank him for his support. Our bill would allow employees who have medical FSAs to cash out unused amounts, effectively repealing the current ``use-it-or-lose-it'' policy.

Our legislation would modernize and encourage participation in FSAs, which are a helpful tool for health care consumers who face significant cost sharing burdens. It would remove the penalty on employees who act prudently throughout the year and save their FSA dollars.

Flexible spending arrangements are an important benefit for many of my constituents in Maryland, Federal, State, and private sector employees, that allows them to set aside a portion of their income tax- free to pay for out-of-pocket medical expenses, such as co-payments for doctor visits and prescription drugs, medical supplies, and equipment.

Nationwide, about 35 million Americans have FSAs, and the median salary of FSA participants is $55,000. It is estimated that one-third of Federal employees contribute to an FSA. Currently in Maryland, there are over 50,000 Federal employees who benefit from FSAs. These plans are efficient, the administrative costs are between two and three percent of claims, far lower than other health insurance administrative costs, and over 90 percent of claims can be substantiated electronically, meaning that paperwork for participants is minimized.

More than 85 percent of America's large employers offer FSAs, but only about 20 percent of eligible employees enroll. According to several surveys of eligible participants, the primary reason for declining to enroll or for underfunding accounts is concern about the ``use-it-or-lose-it'' rule, which requires participants to spend their entire contribution before the end of the plan year or risk forfeiting the unused funds back to their employer. This ``use-it-or-lose-it'' rule was initially enacted to prevent participants from putting excessive amounts in their FSA, and it served to regulate what used to be an uncapped benefit. With the enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, annual contributions to FSAs will be capped at $2,500 beginning in 2013, which makes the ``use-it-or-lose-it'' rule unnecessary.

It is unreasonable to expect FSA participants, especially those with chronic conditions, to be able to accurately forecast their out-of- pocket medical expenses a year in advance, and it is unfair to penalize them at the end of the plan year if their estimates are incorrect by making them forfeit any unspent amounts. Ending the ``use-it-

or-lose-it'' rule and allowing for this cash-out option is a wise and sensible improvement to FSAs that will encourage more efficient participation in medical flexible spending accounts.

It is time to modernize FSAs to eliminate this burdensome ``use-it- or-lose-it'' rule. It is both fair and sound health policy to allow FSA participants to cash-out remaining funds at the end of the plan year rather than forfeiting the balance to their employer. The amounts cashed out would be taxable for the year of the cash-out. Moreover, just as it is at the discretion of employers to establish FSAs for their employees, it would be the employer's option to offer the cash- out feature. But I believe many employers will offer this option, as they too will save money through increased employer payroll tax savings.

Data provided by WageWorks shows that the average unused balance in the end of the year in an FSA is about $100, and each year a total of nearly $400 million remains in FSA accounts. The static analysis, before considering the effects of greater participation in FSAs, would indicate that allowing a cash-out of these funds and taxing these unused amounts would increase federal revenues by about $70 million a year, holding everything else constant.

Our legislation is supported by the Employers' Council on Flexible Compensation, representing more than 100 member companies, including employers, accounting and consulting firms, third party administrators, and actuarial companies. I am also pleased to announce the support of the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents more than 150,000 Federal employees in 31 agencies.

I commend Representatives Charles Boustany and John Larson for having introduced a bipartisan companion bill in the House of Representatives, and urge my colleagues to support this common-sense measure.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medical FSA Improvement Act of 2011. I am joined in this effort by Senator Enzi and I thank him for his support. Our bill would allow employees who have medical FSAs to cash out unused amounts, effectively repealing the current ``use-it-or-lose-it'' policy.

Our legislation would modernize and encourage participation in FSAs, which are a helpful tool for health care consumers who face significant cost sharing burdens. It would remove the penalty on employees who act prudently throughout the year and save their FSA dollars.

Flexible spending arrangements are an important benefit for many of my constituents in Maryland, Federal, State, and private sector employees, that allows them to set aside a portion of their income tax- free to pay for out-of-pocket medical expenses, such as co-payments for doctor visits and prescription drugs, medical supplies, and equipment.

Nationwide, about 35 million Americans have FSAs, and the median salary of FSA participants is $55,000. It is estimated that one-third of Federal employees contribute to an FSA. Currently in Maryland, there are over 50,000 Federal employees who benefit from FSAs. These plans are efficient, the administrative costs are between two and three percent of claims, far lower than other health insurance administrative costs, and over 90 percent of claims can be substantiated electronically, meaning that paperwork for participants is minimized.

More than 85 percent of America's large employers offer FSAs, but only about 20 percent of eligible employees enroll. According to several surveys of eligible participants, the primary reason for declining to enroll or for underfunding accounts is concern about the ``use-it-or-lose-it'' rule, which requires participants to spend their entire contribution before the end of the plan year or risk forfeiting the unused funds back to their employer. This ``use-it-or-lose-it'' rule was initially enacted to prevent participants from putting excessive amounts in their FSA, and it served to regulate what used to be an uncapped benefit. With the enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, annual contributions to FSAs will be capped at $2,500 beginning in 2013, which makes the ``use-it-or-lose-it'' rule unnecessary.

It is unreasonable to expect FSA participants, especially those with chronic conditions, to be able to accurately forecast their out-of- pocket medical expenses a year in advance, and it is unfair to penalize them at the end of the plan year if their estimates are incorrect by making them forfeit any unspent amounts. Ending the ``use-it-

or-lose-it'' rule and allowing for this cash-out option is a wise and sensible improvement to FSAs that will encourage more efficient participation in medical flexible spending accounts.

It is time to modernize FSAs to eliminate this burdensome ``use-it- or-lose-it'' rule. It is both fair and sound health policy to allow FSA participants to cash-out remaining funds at the end of the plan year rather than forfeiting the balance to their employer. The amounts cashed out would be taxable for the year of the cash-out. Moreover, just as it is at the discretion of employers to establish FSAs for their employees, it would be the employer's option to offer the cash- out feature. But I believe many employers will offer this option, as they too will save money through increased employer payroll tax savings.

Data provided by WageWorks shows that the average unused balance in the end of the year in an FSA is about $100, and each year a total of nearly $400 million remains in FSA accounts. The static analysis, before considering the effects of greater participation in FSAs, would indicate that allowing a cash-out of these funds and taxing these unused amounts would increase federal revenues by about $70 million a year, holding everything else constant.

Our legislation is supported by the Employers' Council on Flexible Compensation, representing more than 100 member companies, including employers, accounting and consulting firms, third party administrators, and actuarial companies. I am also pleased to announce the support of the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents more than 150,000 Federal employees in 31 agencies.

I commend Representatives Charles Boustany and John Larson for having introduced a bipartisan companion bill in the House of Representatives, and urge my colleagues to support this common-sense measure.

I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 10 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. President, I take this time to point out the obvious; that is, we are 13 days away from August 2, the date Secretary Geithner has indicated, if we do not raise the debt ceiling, that America runs the risk of defaulting on its debt and not paying its bills. I bring this up because this is an issue on which we never should be this close to this deadline.

It has been pointed out many times that the debt ceiling has very little to do with how much money we spend. It has nothing to do with how much money we spend because we already spent this money. The question is whether we are going to pay our bills, whether the United States is going to live up to its obligations, or whether we are going to default on our debt.

The prospect of not making that deadline is basically unthinkable, that the United States would give up its preeminent position internationally. It could jeopardize the U.S. currency being the global currency. It would have an effect on everyone in this Nation.

We already have heard from the rating houses. Last week, both Standard & Poor's, S&P, and Moody's Investors Service warned they are considering downgrading the country's credit rating if the debt ceiling is not raised. A smaller firm, Egan-Jones Ratings, has already downgraded the U.S. securities. What happens if we get the major rating houses saying we are no longer AAA bond rated? Well, it will have an immediate effect on costs for taxpayers in this country. It will cost us more to borrow. That means we will have to pay higher taxes in order to pay the interest on the national debt. It will affect all credit in this country. It is estimated that the typical homeowner will pay an extra $1,000 a year on mortgage costs. The average credit card holder will pay an extra $250 a year in credit card interest. In other words, the interest rates of the Federal Treasury notes affect all the interest rates in this Nation. All of us will pay more, and it will cost jobs. It will cost us in our retirement savings. It will affect each one of us.

Yesterday, the people of Maryland found out another way the failure to increase the debt ceiling will have an effect on Maryland taxpayers; that is, the rating houses have indicated that if the Federal credit is jeopardized, the State of Maryland's AAA bond rating is in jeopardy. Why? Because Maryland depends, as do most States, upon the Federal Government.

Governor O'Malley, as the Presiding Officer knows--when you were Governor of West Virginia, you managed your State well. The credit ratings you deserved were based upon what you did in your State. That is true in Maryland. But Marylanders will find that their credit costs will go up if we don't increase the debt ceiling by August 2. We are all in this. We should never be this close. We should make sure we increase the debt ceiling by August 2.

Yes, I do hope we use this as an opportunity to get our spending and our budget in order. We need to manage our deficit. We all understand that. We have to bring our debt under proper management.

I have taken the floor before to sort of go over how we got here. I am not going to do that today, but I am here to tell you that the Democrats in the Senate, under Senator Conrad, have come in with a proposal that we think is well-balanced, that has more deficit reduction, quite frankly, than any plan that is out there. It is comprehensive, and it will allow us to be able to continue to grow our economy because the best thing we can do for our deficit is to create more jobs. The Conrad Democratic budget does that by investing in education, by investing in innovation and in infrastructure.

It also recognizes we have to bring the deficit under control. It protects Medicare and Medicaid because we know those programs are important for our seniors and important for our economy. So we protect high-priority programs and include more deficit reduction by having a balanced approach. That is what we should do in addition to raising the debt ceiling. We should have a comprehensive approach.

Let me cite some of the numbers of what the Conrad budget does. It brings spending down to 22 percent. I heard some of my colleagues talk about the historical averages. Twenty-two percent of our economy would be the same spending amount, on average, we had when Ronald Reagan was President. I think most of us would agree the Reagan years were certainly conservative in terms of government spending. That would bring down the percentages, despite the demographic changes in this country. I think that is quite an accomplishment.

The revenues would be equal to what the revenues were as a percentage of our economy when Bill Clinton was President of the United States and when we had the strongest economic growth and the greatest job growth in modern history. So these are responsible programs.

It also, by the way, says to our government workers, who should not be used as scapegoats and who are doing incredible work under difficult circumstances and are being asked to do more with less since they have already made the sacrifice with a 2-year pay freeze--the Conrad Democratic budget says enough is enough and doesn't ask our Federal workers to make additional sacrifices beyond the 2-year pay freeze they have already been subjected to.

I know there are other efforts and I hope we will continue those efforts. I have spoken before about the Bowles-Simpson approach, and we have the bipartisan group working. That is how we should proceed. But, quite frankly, this cut, cap, and balance is not a bipartisan effort; it is an extreme effort by Republicans to bring forward a budget that is even more severe and more radical than the Ryan budget. I call it cut, cap, and kill when it comes to Medicare.

Why do I say that? I have taken the floor regarding the Republican Ryan budget to point out the impact on the Medicare system, which would be to increase the costs, on average, to our seniors, when it is fully implemented, by an additional $6,500 to pay for health care. I know the Presiding Officer has been through West Virginia and I have been through Maryland and I know our seniors are already paying too much for health care. They cannot afford another $6,500 a year for their health care. We should be looking at reducing their health care costs, not increasing them.

But the cut, cap, and balance approach would go even beyond that. It is estimated there would be another $2,500 in costs on top of the $6,500, so $9,000 of additional costs, when fully implemented, to our seniors for health care. That is cut, cap, and kill on Medicare, and I don't think any one of us wants to be responsible for that.

I heard my colleagues talk about job growth, and we are all for job growth. The cut, cap, and balance bill is estimated to cost us hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs.

Why do we say that? Well, the objective is not very subtle. The objective, as the Heritage Foundation has said--and this was just sent out to us--this would cut the size of the Federal Government by about half within 25 years. Are we going to tell our students they can do without half of their Pell grants? Yesterday, I joined students from around the Nation and presidents of colleges to talk about the importance of the Pell grant. At Morgan State University in Maryland and the University of Maryland Eastern Shore--both historically Black colleges and universities, in which 80 percent of their student body is made up of minority students--50 percent depend upon Pell grants. Half of that number could not be there without Pell grants. We are saying it is OK to cut the Pell grants in half? No, it is not OK.

Are we going to tell our seniors we are going to cut Social Security in half?

Are we going to tell those people who need unemployment insurance they are going to get 50 percent? It is not sustainable.

I heard my colleagues talk about predictability. Well, the cut, cap, and balance bill is not going to be sustained. It is a radical approach. We can do better.

Quite frankly, David Brooks, the conservative columnist, said it best. I will quote what he said about where the Republicans, particularly in the House, are trying to lead this Nation. David Brooks wrote:

. . . the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party.

Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction

that is more of a psychological protest than a practical,

governing alternative.

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of

compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to

raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot,

they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch

to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.

That is from David Brooks, the conservative columnist.

We need to have the system work. We need Democrats and Republicans working together. We need a budget plan that is predictable, that gets our budget under control, that allows America to create the jobs we need, and that invests in education, innovation, and infrastructure so America can continue to lead the world in economic growth. That is what we need to do. It starts by raising the debt limit so America does not default on its obligations and for us to work in a bipartisan manner to develop a budget plan that gets the debt under control but allows America to live up to its commitments to our seniors, to our students, and to create the job opportunities for tomorrow.

That is what we need to do, and that is what this Senator is prepared to do.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise in my capacity as cochairman of the Helsinki Commission to again draw attention to the tragic consequences of Turkey's invasion and ongoing occupation of the Republic of Cyprus begun 37 years ago today. I applaud the leadership demonstrated by President Christofias in an attempt to bring about a comprehensive settlement and reunification of his country based on a bizonal, bicommunal federation with political equality, as defined in the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, with a single sovereignty, single citizenship and single international personality. Attempts to resolve the Cyprus issue are exacerbated by Turkish intransigence; the continued deployment of tens of thousands of Turkish troops in occupied northern Cyprus; and the introduction of an estimated 160,000 settlers from mainland Turkey. Indeed, the reality is that settlers outnumber indigenous Turkish Cypriots altering the demographic composition of that community by a margin of about two to one.

Previously, I have addressed a number of specific human rights concerns stemming from the ongoing occupation, including freedom of movement, property rights, and freedom of religion. Under my chairmanship, the Helsinki Commission convened a public briefing, ``Cyprus' Religious Cultural Heritage in Peril'' to document the desecration and destruction of sacred sites in occupied Northern Cyprus.

Today, I want to focus on the situation in the city of Famagusta, the once thriving commercial center and tourist destination on the east coast of Cyprus, featuring the country's deepest water port. This cosmopolitan city, home to nearly 50,000 Cypriots, was a center for trade and finance as well as culture, known for its many museums and vibrant nightlife. The second wave of the Turkish invasion, launched in August 1974, targeted Famagusta and the surrounding region. Seaside hotels that attracted tourists from throughout the world and other important high rise buildings were targeted for bombardment as residents were forced to flee. Today, barbwire rings the city of Famagusta, a veritable ghost town except for Turkish troops patrolling the perimeter of this once bustling urban center. What looters left behind is slowly being reclaimed by nature and decades of exposure to the elements.

The only thing I can compare this scene to comes from my walk along the deserted streets in the city of Prypiat, a Ukrainian city of similar size to Famagusta, located in the Chornbyl exclusion zone a short distance from the site of the world's worst nuclear accident. While health concerns keep the residents of the former away, armed Turkish troops prevent lawful residents of Famagusta from returning.

Notwithstanding numerous U.N. resolutions on Cyprus, including provisions specifically addressing the city of Famagusta, Turkey continues to illegally occupy a third of Cypriot territory, preventing Greek Cypriots from returning to their homes and businesses in the occupied area, including Famagusta. In keeping with these UN resolutions and principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act, it is time for Turkey to end its illegal occupation of the sovereign Republic of Cyprus. Agreement allowing the lawful residents to return and rebuild the city of Famagusta would be an important step in the right direction.

Mr. President, I have filed a formal objection to the consideration of H.R. 872, a bill to exempt pesticide applications from coverage under the Clean Water Act. I rise today to explain the reasoning for my opposition to this bill.

H.R. 872 is based on the notion that the law governing the licensing of pesticides provides all the environmental safeguards that are necessary. In proponents' view, obtaining a Clean Water Act permit would be duplicative. That is incorrect.

As chairman of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I have serious concerns about how pesticide pollution is impacting human health, natural resources and the economies that depend on them.

Today, more than 1,800 waterways in the United States are known to be impaired because of pesticide pollution. Limited water quality sampling suggests the number is actually much higher. In a nationwide study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, more than half of the streams sampled had concentrations of at least one pesticide that exceeded a guideline for the protection of aquatic life. In California alone, more than one in four of the State's waters are officially listed as impaired because of pesticide pollution.

Chesapeake Bay is the most biologically diverse estuary in the country and serves as a vital economic resource to the region. One recent study found that portions of the bay with higher concentrations of pesticide pollution exhibited decreased species diversity and reported a ``surprising number'' of such sites in the lower bay. Pesticide pollution in the Chesapeake has been linked to fish kills and abnormalities. Moreover, extensive samples taken from Chesapeake tributaries displayed a range of pesticides and herbicides. Atrazine, one of Maryland's most used herbicides, was detected in every water sample taken. The active ingredient in atrazine is resistant to natural degradation in water and inhibits photosynthesis in plants. The USGS found that concentrations of atrazine commonly found in agricultural streams and rivers produced reproduction and development abnormalities.

Pesticides, by their very nature, consist of various toxins. They are regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, to determine if they are generally safe to use. The law is not designed to deal with the many real-world instances in which those ``general'' conditions are not applicable.

Pesticide pollution can cause severe reproductive and developmental harm and even death. Even at levels that allow for the product to be registered, pesticides may cause health problems in fish, amphibians and other aquatic species. Additionally, pesticide pollution can affect human health through contaminated drinking water and bioaccumulation in those that eat contaminated fish.

These pollution levels are the result of massive releases of pesticides that are having adverse environmental impacts that go far beyond what is regulated under the general application rule in FIFRA. We need FIFRA, but we also need the Clean Water Act.

Approval of a pesticide under FIFRA only requires that the active chemical ``will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.''

Clean Water Act permits, on the other hand, are approved based on a pesticide's impact on a specific waterway. It takes into account the water body specific context including specific uses, such as swimming and fishing, and whether significant fish species rely on the waters. Additionally, Clean Water Act permits place enforceable limits on the amount and type of pollutants that can be discharged.

FIFRA registration is not an acceptable substitute for water discharge permits. The localized impact assessment and enforceable discharge limits of Clean Water Act permits are far better equipped to address water quality issues than FIFRA's nationwide cost-benefit-based assessment. To exempt pesticides from comprehensive regulation would unreasonably compromise the quality of our waterways.

Clearly, the Nation has a problem with pesticide pollution in our waters that needs to be addressed. The courts have said so, and scientific data reinforce that conclusion. That doesn't mean that every backyard application of a weed-killer needs a Clean Water Act permit. Providing targeted exemptions of de minimis users of pesticides makes good sense. Generally speaking, backyard applicators and local lawn care companies should be exempt from coverage. Regulating these users would do little to improve water quality and would be an unnecessary burden on them. Emergency applications to control mosquito outbreaks associated with West Nile virus or a new outbreak of gypsy moth, for example, should be allowed. Permits could be obtained after-the-fact in these emergency situations without penalty. Agricultural applications to land should continue to be exempt. Permits should be easy to obtain and impose minimal monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

H.R. 872 simply goes too far, providing blanket exemptions and ignoring the real water quality problems that pesticides are causing in America's waters today. I support a more balanced approach.

The Clean Water Act has resulted in tremendous successes in preserving and restoring U.S. waterways, but many of our waterways are still impaired and require further attention. To categorically exempt pesticides from Clean Water Act permitting would be a step backwards in our nationwide efforts to ensure our waterways are healthy and safe. We can do better.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, we are getting dangerously close to the August 2 deadline. The August 2 deadline is the deadline for America to increase its debt limit or to face default on our obligations. We need to come together. We need to increase the debt limit, and this is an opportunity for us also to manage our debt.

We have been talking about this for a while, and I understand--and I think my colleagues understand--the responsible thing for us to do is to use this opportunity to increase the debt limit to also craft a game plan to manage our national debt and our spending. We need to have a credible plan. Our debt is not sustainable. We cannot continue along this path. We understand that. We have to have a credible plan to manage our deficit. Well, quite frankly, the Democrats have come up with these plans.

The proposal offered by Senator Conrad, the chairman of the Budget Committee--and supported by all the Democrats on the Budget Committee, and I am proud to be a member of that committee--brings forward a credible proposal that has all the elements of our budget on the table. It reduces government spending. It deals with protecting the priorities that are important for America's growth. It invests in education. It invests in innovation and in infrastructure so we can create the jobs necessary for America's prosperity. That is what that budget does. It brings about more deficit reduction than the Republican budget, bringing our debt under control.

We understand we need a bipartisan budget. It is not going to be just what the Democrats want. That is what the political process is all about. Midterm elections: The House is controlled by Republicans. The Senate has a Democratic majority. We have to come together.

What many of us have said in this body is let's use the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson proposal as a starting point. That has all the elements on the table, including mandatory spending and including doing a better job on revenues. It is a bipartisan proposal. Democrats have said we are willing to work and come out with what we call the grand deal--the deal that will manage our debt and all elements of the Federal budget will be on the table as we talk about that.

But there is one option that should not be on the table, and that option is to allow August 2 to pass without increasing the debt limit; in other words, to permit America to default on its obligations. That is one option that cannot be on the table. Quite frankly, what concerns me is there seems to be a growing number of Republicans who say that is an option; that is OK; it will be all right for us to pass August 2 without increasing the debt limit.

Let me quote, if I might, from David Brooks, the conservative columnist, who said:

. . . the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party.

Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction

that is more of a psychological protest than a practical,

governing alternative. The members of this movement do not

accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the

terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to

cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them

to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they

will still say no.

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy

of scholars or intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial

experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have

calamitous effects, far worse than raising revenues a bit.

But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.

I know the majority leader in the House of Representatives, Mr. Cantor, tells us there is no compromise that can pass at the present time in the House of Representatives. I don't accept that. I think Democrats and Republicans working together in the House can pass a grand deal under the parameters that have been talked about at the White House. But what Mr. Cantor needs to do is work with the Democrats as well as the Republicans in the House of Representatives. We have to come together, Democrats and Republicans.

The one part of the option that should not be on the table is to allow us to pass August 2 without raising the debt limit. Let me talk about the consequences. I have said I believe they are catastrophic consequences, and I do believe that. We know it is likely--almost certain--that the rating houses will downgrade America's currency from the most secure currency in the world. We would be downgraded. We run a real risk as to whether the dollar will continue to be the global currency. Right now, many international transactions are related in dollars. We know that as it relates to energy. All of a sudden, on August 3, we run the risk that the American dollar will no longer be the global currency, having a major impact on the U.S. economy.

J.P. Morgan tells us we could expect an immediate increase in interest costs of 75 to 100 basis points. What does that mean? Well, for the taxpayers of this country, it means it is going to cost

more money for us to pay for our borrowing. That will raise the cost of interest payments which I would suggest is a not very productive use of taxpayer dollars, causing taxpayers to have to pay more for our borrowing. But it goes well beyond the Federal taxpayers. It affects every family in America. The estimates are that the effect of the increase in U.S. obligations on interest rates will have an effect on all borrowing. So if a person is buying a home, they can expect the interest costs will increase by about $1,000 a year. If a person is a credit card holder, they can expect their interest rates to go up about $250 a year. That is the effect it is going to have on every American family if we pass August 2 without increasing our debt limit.

If a person has money in the stock market, they can expect there will be a reduction in the value of their wealth. We saw that happen once before when retirement account values slipped dramatically. We are at risk of having that happen again if we pass August 2 without increasing the debt limit.

The impact it will have on our economy, on jobs--we expect it will clearly have a negative impact on our job market. We will lose jobs and we very well may go back into a recession. That is why this is catastrophic if we don't deal with the debt limit in a mature way.

Let me cite the numbers. In the month of August, we expect we are going to have about $172 billion of revenue coming into our Treasury, but we are going to have $360 billion of bills coming in--spending we have already incurred that we have to pay for. There are those who say we can pick which bills we want to pay and let the others go. They say we will have some winners and losers. Well, I think we will have all losers, because we can't pick winners and losers.

There are some who say, well, obviously, we will pay interest on the national debt. OK, we will pay that. How about Social Security, and how long can we pay Social Security? If we don't pay Social Security, what happens to those on fixed incomes or, if we reduce the Social Security payments, how does someone who has planned their monthly budget manage with getting, say, 40 percent less of their Social Security in August? How do they handle their obligations?

Then what do we do about Medicare? Do we continue to pay Medicare at 100 percent? Well, I assume we are going to run out of money.

What do we do about our military, our soldiers, who we all say we want to support? Do we continue their salaries or do we reduce their amounts by, say, 40 percent? If we pay all of those, there is no money left over to pay veterans' benefits. What happens to our veterans who are depending on their checks to be able to meet their obligations?

Then what do we tell our students who are preparing to go to school in the fall about their Pell grants, that their Pell grants aren't going to be available and maybe they can't go to school in the fall? They have to make plans right now.

What do we do about small business owners who are depending upon their contracts with the Federal Government in order to make their payroll? Is their money going to be coming in on August 3? We can't pay those bills unless we raise the debt limit. It has nothing to do with increased obligations of this country; we are talking about spending we have already incurred, that has already been obligated, and now the people who are entitled to the money are asking for their checks. What do we do on August 3?

I don't believe we have a choice. I think we must increase the debt limit. I don't think it is an option not to. No responsible legislator would consider that to be an option.

Yes, let's use that opportunity to manage our deficit. I still hold out hope we can get this grand deal. It has to be fair. It has to be balanced. It has to allow America to grow and it has to allow us to create more jobs. It has to invest in education and innovation and infrastructure so America can compete. We know we can get that done if we use a balanced approach: Reduce government spending at all levels, including the military, as we bring our troops home from Afghanistan. Yes, we need to look at the money we spend through our Tax Code. We have talked about this over and over. We need to have a balanced approach, a credible approach, to manage our debt. That should be our first option. But under no circumstances should we allow America to default on its obligations, causing harm to every American family.

I urge my colleagues to put the national interests first and to take off the table the default on our debt. Take that off the table. Let's put the national interests first and work together to bring about a credible plan to manage our national debt.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 14, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. in room G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 14, 2011, at 10 a.m. to conduct a committee hearing entitled ``The Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 14, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 14, 2011, at 10:30 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Two New Sudans: A Roadmap Forward.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Lessons from the Field: Learning From What Works for Employment for Persons with Disabilities'' on July 14, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 14, 2011, at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on July 14, 2011, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session on July 14, 2011, in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building beginning at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 14, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 14, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``The National Nanotechnology Investment: Manufacturing, Commercialization, and Job Creation.''

Mr. President, I take this time to talk about the pending business: the deficit of this country and the looming debt ceiling limit that will be exceeded in August if we don't take any action in the Congress.

First, let me talk a little bit about the debt ceiling. There has been a lot of talk about the debt ceiling as to what is responsible for Congress to do.

We all know that over the last 50 years or so, the debt ceiling has been increased over 80 times. It is done after the fact. That means we have already incurred the liability, and the question is whether we will pay our bills.

The decisions we have to make in regard to our fiscal policies need to be made at the time we consider the budget, but now we have to pay our bills,

and raising the debt ceiling is not only a legal responsibility that we have to pay our bills, it is also a moral responsibility and speaks to whether we are willing to live up to our obligations.

The failure to raise the debt ceiling would be irresponsible. It would jeopardize our national security because it would cost taxpayers more money, and it would say to the world that U.S. bonds, which are the safest in the world, are called into question. I think we all should agree we need to make sure we increase the debt ceiling in time so we do not cause those adverse effects to our Nation.

The debt ceiling debate gives us an opportunity to do something about the deficit. Our deficit is not sustainable. By that, I mean if we do not change course, our debt will be too large as a percentage of our economy to be sustainable. We need to deal with spending and we need to deal with revenue and bring them into balance.

The discussions on the debt ceiling could be the opportunity for us to develop a credible plan to manage our deficit, and I certainly hope that is the case, that we come together with a credible plan to manage our deficit. I hope it will be bipartisan, that Democrats and Republicans will work together on a plan. It would not be exactly what either side wants. In fact, we will both have to make compromises. If we do that, if we have a credible plan, I believe it will stimulate our economy and clearly help us create more jobs, which is the best we can do to help reduce our deficit.

To start, we have to understand how we got to this point. Ten years ago, we had surpluses. Ten short years ago, we had surpluses. We were concerned that we might be retiring all of our privately held debt. I was proud to have been part of the Congress that voted on the legislation that brought our deficits down and gave us a surplus and one of the longest periods of economic growth in America's history.

Then, during the previous administration which inherited that large surplus, policies were brought forward to cut taxes, not once but twice. Many of those tax cuts went to our wealthiest people. The United States went to war in two countries and borrowed money in order to pursue those wars--I think the first time in modern history the United States went to war and asked the people to sacrifice by cutting taxes. The end result was large deficits, and when Barack Obama became President, he had huge deficits, unlike George W. Bush, who had huge surpluses. When George W. Bush took the oath of office for the Presidency, our economy was growing jobs. When Barack Obama became President of the United States, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month.

That is the current situation. The situation we face today is we have these deficits we have to deal with. How do we deal with them? We need a balanced approach.

I must tell you that I am proud Senator Conrad, on behalf of the Democrats on the Budget Committee, has come forward with a credible plan that preserves the priorities of this country to grow and does bring our deficit under control. I am proud to be a member of the Budget Committee. Working with Senator Conrad, working with my Democratic colleagues, we put together the plan Senator Conrad spoke about on the floor earlier this week.

First, the most important aspect of Senator Conrad's budget is that it brings down the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 10 years. It actually has more deficit reduction than the House-passed so-called Ryan plan that the Republicans in the House sent over to us. The Conrad plan that the Senate Democrats have come up with will bring about more deficit reduction and substantially more deficit reduction than the Bowles-Simpson commission had recommended because we are using more accurate numbers.

It would stabilize the debt by 2014. That is a very important point. I think what we are all trying to do is manage our deficit and at the same time help our economy. That is what the Conrad budget does. It stabilizes the debts by 2014, and it starts with reducing domestic spending. When we look at spending generally and what has happened, we are now spending about 24.1 percent of our GDP. The Conrad budget over 10 years would bring that down to 22.1 percent--a substantial reduction in our spending programs. Let me tell you, 22.1 percent would be the same amount of government spending as we were spending during the Reagan Presidency. This is not any radical approach to saying we are going to spend a lot more money. Instead, we are bringing spending down to the level it was when Ronald Reagan was President of the United States.

The budget would also deal with our obligations for mandatory spending. We took major steps to do that in the last Congress. The passage of the affordable care act helped us to put forward a blueprint to manage our health care costs as a nation by providing universal coverage, by investing in health information technology, by investing in wellness programs, by investing in reducing readmissions to hospitals--the list goes on and on. We are getting a handle on health care costs. The CBO says to us that the bill we passed in the last Congress would reduce Federal spending by over $1 trillion over the next 20 years. By reducing health care costs, we reduce Medicare and Medicaid future responsibilities. So we have already taken some steps.

The Conrad budget that the Democrats in the Senate have brought forward will build on that to bring about additional savings in domestic spending. But the important thing about the budget Senator Conrad has brought forward as compared to the Ryan budget, the Republican budget that passed the House, is that the Conrad budget invests in America's future because it is balanced. We invest in what is important for job growth in America. We continue to make education a top priority so American families can afford to send their children to college, so we invest in improving educational opportunities for all people in our Nation.

The Conrad budget allows us to invest so America can continue to lead the world in innovation. That has been where we have created so many jobs. In my own State of Maryland, I look at where the job growth is, and I see small innovative companies developing ways to protect our Nation in cyber security, I see them finding ways to solve our energy problems, moving forward with health technology--all in innovation, all from the ability to use our creative genius to keep America in the lead economically.

The Conrad budget allows us to continue our investments in NIH in basic research. The Ryan budget does not allow us to do that. There are significant cutbacks in all those areas.

The Conrad budget, which the House and Senate Democrats have brought forward, allows us to invest in our infrastructure--our roads, our bridges, our water systems, our transit systems--so that America can truly be competitive in the future, creating more jobs for the people in this Nation.

The budget also deals with our military spending. Let me tell you one fact that I think the people of this Nation should understand. America spends as much on defense as almost the entire amount spent by all the other nations of the world. It is difficult to see how our Nation can continue to grow the way we want to with so much of our budget tied up in national defense. We need to figure out a better way and one where we can save money. Between 1997 and 2011, the defense budget of our country grew from $254 billion a year to $688 billion a year. What does the Republican budget do? They just increase those numbers dramatically over the next year, 5 years, 10 years. The Democratic proposal recognizes the reality that we can bring our combat troops home from Afghanistan, that we can expect the international community to do more, and we can bring about savings on the military side.

Let me talk about the last major component of the Conrad budget and how it differs substantially from the Ryan budget; that is, the area of revenues. I know there has been a lot of discussion about revenues. What does the Democratic budget do in this regard? It takes our revenues to 19.5 percent of our gross domestic product. That is the same amount that was raised during the Clinton Presidency when we had unprecedented prosperity and job growth in America. How do we get there? How do we get the revenues we need in order to be able to bring this debt under control? Senator Conrad has given us some direction on how we can do that. He has pointed out that shelters and loopholes need to be closed. These are inefficiencies in our Tax Code today.

I have taken the floor on two occasions recently to talk about some that I think we should eliminate. One is the ethanol subsidy. We had a vote on the floor of the Senate, and the majority of Senators voted in favor of eliminating the ethanol subsidy. Why? Because it is not needed. Ethanol sales are not dependent upon a Federal tax break. Second, it is causing a disruption in the agricultural community. I pointed out that the poultry industry in Maryland suffers from the high price of corn, costing us jobs. Eliminating the ethanol subsidies is a win-win situation. Why not take that money and use it for deficit reduction?

I also pointed out the major gas companies in this country are receiving subsidies from the taxpayers. Their profits in the first 3 months of this year were $34 billion. They certainly don't need the help from the taxpayers. The taxpayers have already given them too much in the price of gasoline at the pump, which has hurt our economy except for the profits of the gasoline companies. So there are tax loopholes, and there are shelters that could be closed that amount to a substantial amount of Federal expenditure. And, yes, the highest income taxpayers, the millionaires and billionaires, is it reasonable or right or fair to expect that they should continue to get these lower tax rates that were temporarily extended under the Bush administration indefinitely when we are trying to figure out ways in which we could bring the budget into balance?

Senator Conrad has made it very clear that there would be no change from the current tax rates for those families who have $1 million of income or less. I think that is a pretty generous commitment about not changing tax rates, particularly during these economic times.

Let's compare the budgets. The Republican budget, the Ryan budget, says: Look, all the savings are going to come out of the spending side and, in fact, we are going to have some additional tax cuts--asking middle-income families to pay more while our wealthiest enjoy even more tax breaks.

The Democratic budget, submitted by Senator Conrad, says: We are going to be balanced. Mr. President, 50 percent of our deficit reduction is on the revenue side, but that includes reducing tax expenditures, tax spending. We spend money in the Tax Code, $1.4 trillion a year. I don't understand the difference if we are spending more on housing on the Tax Code or spending money on housing on the appropriations bill. Both should be subject to the same type of scrutiny.

So why aren't we using a similar standard? Well, we have a chance to do that in the Conrad budget--50 percent from revenues, including tax spending, 50 percent from the direct spending cuts. That is a balanced approach. That is a credible approach. It is an approach that will protect our most vulnerable. Our students are protected to make sure we continue our commitment to education and to the cost of higher education through the Pell grants. Our seniors are protected in that we do not do what the Ryan budget would do with Medicare and Medicaid.

Let me remind you, the budget the Republicans passed in the House would change Medicare fundamentally, changing it from a program that guarantees benefits to our seniors to a program where seniors would get a voucher and have to go out and buy from a private insurance company and be at the whim of private insurance companies for adequate protection against their health care needs. It is estimated their health care costs would grow when fully implemented by $6,000 a year. The seniors of Maryland cannot afford an extra $6,000 a year. That will be the difference between an individual getting adequate health care or not.

The Conrad budget rejects that type of radical change in our Medicare system. The Ryan budget would require the block-granting of Medicaid to our States. Our States are already burdened. The chances of them being able to maintain their commitment to young people who depend on the Medicaid system, our seniors who depend upon it for long-term care, is very remote. The Conrad budget protects those programs to make sure we live up to our commitments to provide adequate protection to our families and seniors.

Social Security is protected in the Conrad budget because Social Security didn't cause the deficit. Social Security should be considered outside the budget debates, and I think more and more of the Members are now coming to that conclusion.

Let me mention one other point I think is very important about the Democratic budget that Senator Conrad has brought forward. It recognizes our Federal workforce. I know my colleague is particularly concerned about that representing the State of Virginia. I am particularly concerned about that representing the people of Maryland. We have a lot of dedicated Federal workers who have devoted their careers to helping this Nation by protecting our Nation in their service in homeland security or protecting us in regards to how they deal with health services or how they deal with our veterans. These are dedicated people, and they have already contributed to this deficit reduction. Two-year pay freezes have already been implemented. They have already done their share in helping us bring our budget into balance. The Conrad budget, I am proud to say, says that is enough. Let's not jeopardize our Federal workforce by reducing their compensation package in addition to the freezes. It shows we can do it that way.

Take a look at the Ryan budget that the Republicans have sent over. It contains major reductions in the compensation packages going forward for our Federal workforce. There is a better way. The better way is the Conrad budget.

Quite frankly, we have a choice. We have a choice on whether we are going to move forward and how we are going to move forward. I strongly support a credible plan to deal with the deficit. As I said, we need to get our deficit under control, but we can do it in a way that preserves opportunities for all Americans, creates job opportunities that are desperately needed for our Nation, and protects America's most vulnerable. To me, that is maintaining America's future. That is giving us the best hope so our children and grandchildren will enjoy the opportunities of this great Nation, and that should be the guiding force for our work.

I certainly hope my colleagues will work together so we can come together for the future of this Nation.

With that, I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that CPT Michael K. Lynch, a U.S. Army aviation officer who is currently serving as the defense legislative fellow for the majority leader, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of consideration of S. 1255, the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

Mr. President, Baltimore lost one of its most beloved adopted sons last night, former Baltimore Colt tight end John Mackey. John revolutionized the position and was the second tight end to be enshrined in the National Football League's, NFL, Hall of Fame. He became the first president of the NFL Players Association, NFLPA, after the NFL merged with the old American Football League. He was a tenacious and effective advocate for the players, bargaining for higher salaries and better benefits. He organized a 3-day strike early in his tenure that generated an additional $11 million in pensions and benefits. Mackey also filed and won an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL which eliminated the so-called ``Rozelle Rule'' and ultimately paved the way for players' union to secure full free agency for its members.

For the last 10 years, he suffered from dementia and had to move into an assisted living facility that cost much more than his pension. So he and his beloved wife Sylvia led the fight to convince the NFLPA and the NFL to establish the ``88 Plan,'' named for his uniform number, which provides adult day care and nursing home care for retired players suffering from dementia or Alzheimer's disease. Even in death, John continues to give: Sylvia has announced that his brain will be donated to a Boston University School of Medicine study of brain damage in athletes. Researchers at the university's Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy are examining potential links between repeated concussions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, CTE, a condition which mirrors symptoms of dementia and Alzheimer's disease.

John Mackey grew up in Roosevelt, NY. He was a man of strong convictions, a character trait he inherited from his father, who was a Baptist minister. John was offered an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy but turned it down to attend Syracuse University, where he studied economics, became an All-American football player, and roomed with Ernie Davis, who became the first African American to win the Heisman Trophy. The Colts drafted him in 1963 and he caught more touchdown passes and gained more yards as a rookie than the team's two wide receivers, Hall of Famer Raymond Berry and Jimmy Orr. John was big and strong, like other tight ends of his era, but he could run after catching a pass like no other tight end before him. As Hall of Fame coach Don Shula said, ``Mackey gave us a tight end who weighed 230, ran a 4.6 and could catch the bomb. It was a weapon other teams didn't have.''

John was a three-time All-NFL selection. He played in five Pro Bowls. In 1969, while still playing, he made the NFL's 50th anniversary team as pro football's all-time tight end. Over the course of his career, he caught 38 touchdown passes, 13 of which were for 50 yards or more, including an 89-yarder against the Los Angeles Rams in 1966. That particular touchdown pass was the longest of the 290 scoring passes in Hall of Fame legend Johnny Unitas's career. In a 10-year career, John caught 331 passes for 5,236 yards. Perhaps the biggest and most memorable play in John's career came in the 1971 Super Bowl, when he caught a pass from Unitas that had been deflected by two other players--Colts receiver Eddie Hinton and Dallas Cowboys defender Mike Renfro--and scored a touchdown on the 75-yard play. The Colts went on to win that game in dramatic fashion on Jim O'Brien's field goal with 5 seconds left in the game.

By the time John retired, he had already endeared himself to the people of Baltimore, but he wasn't finished. He was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1992, but he refused to accept his ceremonial ring in Indianapolis, where the Colts had moved in 1984. He said, ``I will do it in Baltimore. That is where I played.'' And so he received his Hall of Fame ring in Memorial Stadium, at half-time of an exhibition game between Miami and New Orleans.

I send my deepest condolences to John's wife Sylvia, to whom he was married for 47 years; his son John Kevin Mackey of Atlanta; two daughters Lisa Mackey Hazel of Bowie and Laura Mackey Nattans of Baltimore; and John and Sylvia's six grandchildren. John Mackey has been taken from us much too soon, but what a life he lived. He was one of the greatest collegiate and professional football players of all time. The Mackey Award is given annually to the best tight end in college. He is enshrined in the Hall of Fame. He led the NFLPA and then courageously led the fight for retired players which culminated in the ``88 Plan.'' His accomplishments and legacy will endure in the hearts and minds of his fellow players and Baltimore Colts fans and football fans forever.

Mr. President, let me thank the senior Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, for his leadership for working families. We were colleagues in the House of Representatives and there was no more effective voice on behalf of working families than Congressman Brown, now Senator Brown. I just want to thank him for bringing these issues to our attention.

He is absolutely right, there has been an all-out assault on the dignity of

working families in this country at all levels. I will talk a little bit about the budget deliberations because I believe here, also, we find an assault on the middle-income families. As President Kennedy said, ``to govern is to choose.'' We have never had a clearer choice of two different visions of America.

I wish to talk a little bit about that because I know we are all working hard to reach a fair compromise, and I am one of those who believe the final agreement will not be what the Democrats want or what the Republicans want. We will have to do a compromise. But I think the people of this Nation need to know the types of choices we are making here in Washington.

I see the Republicans--and I have heard some of the speeches that were recently given on the floor--are really trying to protect the very wealthy, the millionaires. In the Republican budget, millionaires would get another $200,000 of tax cuts, where at the same time that budget would cost our seniors, who live on fixed incomes, an extra $6,000 a year in health care costs if their plan on Medicare were to become law.

Those are the types of choices we are being asked to make here, being asked to continue the gas subsidies--the tax subsidies for the five biggest oil companies in this country. That is what the Republican budget would protect. They would protect those tax breaks. Let me remind you that those five companies in the last decade made $1 trillion in profits, that during the time we saw escalating gas prices here and our economy being hurt by it, people could not afford to fill up their gas tanks. Yet at the same time those five oil companies had record profits. So we say: Let's take away the government subsidies. Yet the choice for our Republican friends is to say: No, we can't do that. Instead, they look at cutting nutrition programs and Pell grants to make it more expensive for children to be able to go to college or nutrition programs to try to have a healthier America.

Well, what we are pushing for is a balanced approach in how we deal with this budget deficit. We could talk a long time about how we got here, the policies of the previous administration. Just 10 years ago, we had these large surpluses. The previous administration cut taxes not once but twice, the second time using the credit card in order to pay for those tax cuts, went to war not in one country but in two countries and used the credit card in order to pay for those wars, and are wondering why we have all this debt today.

Well, it is our responsibility to take care of this deficit because this deficit is affecting the strength of America. We know we need to have a balanced approach in order to do it. I, along with the Presiding Officer, am a member of the Budget Committee. We are working hard on the Budget Committee to come up with a way we can deal with it.The Democrats on that committee are united that there is a better way than the Republican budget that came over from the House of Representatives.

Let me talk a little bit about whether this is class warfare. I have heard that mentioned many times. This might surprise you. I might agree with my Republican friends. I think the Republican budget is an attack on class. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said the Republican budget ``would produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history.'' We are asking the poor and working families to contribute so the wealthy can get more tax breaks. That is just wrong.

What we want to see is a balanced approach, an approach that says: Look, this deficit is very serious. We have to ask and save money wherever we can to balance the Federal budget. It starts by looking at our domestic spending. We have been willing to say: Look, for programs that are not high-priority programs, we have to cut back on them. Programs that are not working we are going to have to eliminate. Let's get rid of duplicate programs.

We say we are prepared to do that. But you also have to look at the nondomestic programs--our military programs and security programs. We know we are in the process now of bringing our combat troops home from Afghanistan. That can produce savings. Let's use that to reduce the budget deficit. There are ways we can get this deficit down.

I was listening to one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about the so-called tax expenditures. Let me put this in context for one moment. Our Tax Code spends about $1.4 trillion a year in special provisions to give special breaks to different taxpayers. I think none of us are saying all of those should be eliminated. What we are saying is, when you find tax loopholes, when you find shelters, when you find tax havens, let's get rid of them.

I have taken to the floor to talk about two areas where I think there is broad consensus. The ethanol subsidy--we do not need it any longer. It is questionable whether we ever needed it. The industry will do just fine without the subsidy. But let me tell you what the subsidy causes. It causes my poultry farmers in Maryland to pay a lot more for their corn, costing jobs in Maryland. So there is a tax subsidy we can get rid of. We had a vote on the floor, and it was quite obvious that the overwhelming majority agrees with that. Why can't we use that for deficit reduction?

We talked about the gas industry. Why are we giving them subsidies? There is no need for them. So we can take those tax shelters, we can take those tax havens, and we can take those loopholes and use that.

And, yes, I think there is a question as to why millionaires are going to continue to get a tax cut that was meant to be temporary in nature when we need as much revenue as we can get to pay off our bills. I think there is an issue here as to whether that is fair. How do we tell students they have to pay more for college, how do we tell families that fewer will be able to go to Head Start, how do we tell our seniors they have to pay more and yet we tell the millionaires they are going to get additional tax cuts? That is not fair, and it does not make good sense for our economy.

There is a better way. I know my colleague from Rhode Island will speak next. He also serves on the Budget Committee. We Democrats have a better way of doing this. We know how we can reduce the budget deficit by even more than the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission proposed, where we can bring in the deficit and bring it under control to make it a reasonable amount of our economy rather than uncontrolled, as it is today. We can do that by bringing in not just domestic spending but also our defense spending in order to reduce spending more in this country.

We can do that, and we can do it in a way that protects the integrity of Medicare. We do not want our seniors at the risk of private insurance companies. We do not want private insurance companies telling our seniors when they can get care and when they cannot. We tried that before we created Medicare, and we know the problems that were created by that. So in our budget, we want to protect the integrity of Social Security and Medicare and the programs that are critically important to our seniors.

We will close the tax loopholes. We will eliminate shelters. We will make sure everybody is part of the solution. We can do it in a way that will help build this great Nation.

Let me tell you what our objectives are, quite frankly. Our objectives are to manage our deficit, bring it down, bring it under control in a real way, to protect those who are most vulnerable in our country, and to invest in America's future so we can create more jobs, so we can continue to build our roads and our bridges, our water systems, so we can continue to invest in education, and, yes, so we can protect our Federal workforce and pay them decent salaries and compensation benefits. We can do all that. But if we are going to get the job done, Democrats and Republicans have to be honest in their debate and their compromise. It will not be what one side wants. We are going to have to compromise for the good of the American people.

I took the time today to share with the people of Maryland and the Nation where I believe our vision should be in regard to the budget of this Nation. I hope we are able to achieve those objectives because I really do believe our children's and grandchildren's future depends on us getting this right. If we work together, we can pass a budget that is in the best interests of the American people and will allow our economy to grow to create jobs, which

is the best answer to deal with our deficit.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this year marks the 75th anniversary of Catoctin Mountain Park, one of Maryland's most spectacular national parks. Located in northern Frederick County in western Maryland, Catoctin, MD, is a popular wilderness refuge just a few hours away from the bustling urban centers of Baltimore and Washington, DC. People of all walks of life visit Catoctin Mountain, whether it is working Maryland and Pennsylvania families taking a weekend camping trip to Misty Mount or U.S. Presidents taking a weekend retreat to Camp David to work or relax without the distractions of Washington. I am proud to celebrate the diamond anniversary of this wonderful natural treasure in my home State.

Catoctin Mountain Park is 5,810 acres of wilderness in the foothills of Maryland's Blue Ridge Mountains. The name Catoctin is what the Algonquians, the predominant Native American tribe of the Mid-Atlantic region prior to European settlement, called the region where Catoctin Mountain Park is located. The Algonquians were known to use rhyolite rocks found throughout the rocky terrain for spearheads and European settlers and Algonquians alike would fish for trout in mountain streams that also supplied water for early agricultural settlements in the valleys around the mountain.

The growth of the settler population in Maryland during colonialism and postrevolutionary America, gave rise to agriculture and industry in western Maryland. The growing industrial age changed the ecological and social condition of the wilderness of the eastern United States and western Maryland was no exception. Logging activities for ship and structural building, iron ore extraction and the arrival of the Western Maryland Railroad drastically changed the culture and natural state of Catoctin.

The Great Depression of the 1930s slowed economic progress and thwarted industrial growth across the country. The extractive industries of the Mid-Atlantic suffered greatly. The Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal ushered in sweeping public works programs to help get Americans back to work building America's infrastructure and renewing the stewardship of our Nation's great resources. Catoctin Mountain Park is a testament to the success of the New Deal's Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps.

In May of 1933 the Federal Emergency Relief Administration was appropriated $300,000,000 to be spent on public works projects designed to provide work for struggling Americans. In 1934 a land planning committee established under the Federal Emergency Relief Act was examining how to put fallow land to better use. Conrad L. Wirth, Assistant Director to the Chief Branch of Planning of the National Park Service served on the land planning committee. Based on the findings in a 1928 report of the Joint Committee on Recreational Survey of Federal Lands, Wirth decided one of the answers to the report's ``urgent need'' to ``provide quality outdoor recreation facilities at the lowest cost for the benefit of people of lower and middle incomes'' on natural areas near urban areas was to establish a recreational area in western Maryland proximate to Baltimore and Washington.

By 1934, years of agricultural, logging and resource extraction activities had taken its toll on the economic value of the land comprising Catoctin. With $25 million transferred to Public Works Administration the Department of the Interior was able to purchase the ``sub-marginal'' lands that now make up Catoctin Mountain Park. Catoctin was officially placed into the program in January of 1935 and within a year and a half, and hundreds of man hours of work, Catoctin Recreational Demonstration Area was officially opened on August 8, 1936.

In the years immediately following Catoctin's official placement under the National Park Service's jurisdiction, The Works Progress Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps provided work for hundreds of men looking to learn a trade, earn a wage and develop leadership skills. These programs are responsible for providing some of the base training these men needed before going off to fight in World War II. The programs themselves reforested the park and restored its natural beauty. The CCC planted thousands of Maples, Pine and Oak trees in the park. The CCC also helped restore mountain streams and create suitable habitat for native fish and wildlife to

return to the mountain. These hardworking men also built many park structures still in use today including the Blue Blazes Contact Station which is now the Catoctin Mountain Park Visitor Center, Camp Round Meadow and Camp Misty Mount.

The legacy of the hard work of these Depression-era CCC and PWA workers lives on today and will continue to be enjoyed for years to come.

President Roosevelt personally experienced the success of the CCC and WPA at Catoctin on many occasions. This is because one major component of the Works Progress Administration's at Catoctin was to build Hi- Catoctin camp for Federal Government agents, now known as Camp David.

FDR hosted Winston Churchill at Catoctin in May of 1943 and every President since FDR has made use of Camp David. Perhaps most famously is President Jimmy Carter who brought Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to Camp David where he brokered the Camp David Peace Accords in September of 1978. But many Presidents and their families go to Camp David, for the same reason everyone else does, to simply enjoy the spectacular outdoor recreational opportunities the park has to offer.

More than 80,000 visitors a year come to Catoctin Mountain Park to experience the park's extensive trail system, scenic vistas, and terrific camping opportunities. When hiking around Chimney Rock or the old Whiskey Still or Sawmill it is not uncommon for visitors to see white tail deer, wild turkey, coyotes, dozens of species of songbirds or even the occasional black bear.

With further dwindling resources for the National Park Service it has become increasing challenging for the NPS to manage the park resources. Invasive species like the emerald ashe bore threaten the health of the park's forest and the sustainability of park habitat for the wildlife that make the park so popular. It is essential that Congress and the Federal Government recognize the importance of preserving these natural resources. That is why I have been a staunch champion for robustly funding the National Park Service because I believe the treasures the NPS work to protect for the public's enjoyment and enrichment is invaluable and it is the responsibility of the Federal government to do this work.

Despite tough fiscal times, the leadership at Catoctin Mountain Park is doing an outstanding job providing fun and educational activities for park visitors and have put together a wide range of special programs and activities to celebrate the park's 75 anniversary.

I congratulate Catoctin Mountain Park and the National Park Service for 75 wonderful years and encourage my colleagues to take a trip to experience this wonderful located in the backyard of your home away from home just outside of Washington.

Mr. President, this week in Budapest there are two events of particular interest to Americans. First, Hungary has unveiled a statue of President Ronald Reagan in front of

the U.S. Embassy in honor of his contribution to the goal of ending communist repression and commemorating the 100th anniversary of his birth. Second, Hungary dedicated the Lantos Institute, named after Tom Lantos, our former colleague from the House of Representatives who worked tirelessly to promote democracy and human rights in the country of his birth. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Clinton have represented the United States at these respective events.

These gestures shine a light on Hungary's historic transformation as well as the close bonds between our two countries. Unfortunately, other developments in Hungary have cast a dark shadow over what should otherwise be happy occasions.

Last year, Hungary held elections in which a right-of-center party, FIDESZ, won a landslide, sweeping out eight years of socialist government rejected by many voters as scandal ridden and inept. With FIDESZ winning 52 percent of the vote, Hungary has the distinction of being the only country in Central Europe since the 1989 transformations where a single party has won an outright majority--not necessarily a bad thing, especially in a region where many governments are periodically hobbled by factionalism.

Those elections were also notable because more than 850,000 Hungarians--16 percent of the vote--cast their ballots for Jobbik, an anti-Semitic, anti-Roma, irredentist party. While Jobbik is an opposition party, it has clearly and negatively influenced public policy discourse.

Under Hungary's electoral system, FIDESZ's 52 percent of the vote has translated into a two-thirds majority of the seats in parliament. The government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban has used that supermajority to push through one controversial initiative after another.

One initiative that has generated particularly sharp criticism is Hungary's new media law. The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media warned it could be used to silence critical media and public debate, it overly concentrates power in regulatory authorities, and it harms media freedom. In Ukraine, where democracy has put down only shallow roots, the Kyiv Post editorialized that ``Hungary's media law should not come here.''

Another area of concern stems from the government's fixation on ethnic Hungarian identity and lost empire in ways that can only be seen as unfriendly by other countries in the region. One of the government's first acts was to amend Hungary's citizenship law to facilitate the acquisition of Hungarian citizenship by ethnic Hungarians in other countries--primarily Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Ukraine. This expansion of citizenship was pushed through even though, in a 2001 statement submitted to the Council of Europe, the Hungarian Government firmly renounced all aspirations for dual citizenship for ethnic Hungarians.

In a further escalation of provocative posturing, a few weeks ago Speaker of the Hungarian Parliament Laszlo Kovar said that military force to change the borders with Slovakia--a NATO ally--would have been justified and, in any case, he added, the ethnic Hungarians in Slovakia are ``ours.''

If one side of the nationalism coin is an excessive fixation on Hungarian ethnic identity beyond the borders, the other side is intolerance toward minorities at home. For example, one increasingly hears the argument, including from government officials, that while the Holocaust was a 20th-century tragedy for Jews, the worst tragedy for Hungarians was the 1920 Treaty of Trianon--the treaty that established the borders for the countries emerging from the defeated Austro- Hungarian Empire.

This comparison is offensive and disturbing. Ethnic Hungarians were never targeted for extermination or subjected to mass murder by Trianon. Moreover, this line of argument presents Hungarians and Jews as mutually exclusive. But more than 400,000 Jews were sent from Hungary to Auschwitz, and more than 10,000 Jews were shot along the banks of the Danube--were they not also Hungarian? How could this not be a tragedy for Hungary?

The government has also used its supermajority to adopt a completely new Constitution which has been reviewed by the Council of Europe's Venice Commission on Democracy through Law, a body of judicial experts.

The Venice Commission expressed particular concern with the requirement that numerous issues can now only be addressed through supermajority or so-called cardinal laws. In other words, ``The more policy issues are transferred beyond the powers of simple majority, the less significance will future elections have and the more possibilities does a two-thirds majority have of cementing its political preferences and the country's legal order.''

In short, the Commission concluded, ``the principle of democracy itself is at risk.''

This combines, by the way, with a court-packing scheme--the expansion of the size of the Constitutional Court from 11 to 15--and a reduction of the retirement age for ordinary judges from 70 to 62, which will reportedly mean 10 percent of all judges will be replaced.

To make exactly clear what he has intended with these reforms, Prime Minister Orban declared that he wants to tie the hands not only of the next government, but of the next 10 governments--that is, future Hungarian governments for the next 40 years.

It is no wonder then that in Freedom House's latest ``Nations in Transit'' survey, released this week, Hungary had declined in ratings for civil society, independent media, national democratic governance, and judicial framework and independence.

Ironically, just as attention shifts to the tantalizing possibility of democratic reform in the Middle East, the red flags in Budapest keep multiplying: Transparency International has warned that transferring the power to appoint the Ombudsman from the parliament to the president means that he or she will not be independent of the executive. NGOs have warned that a new draft religion law may result in a number of religions losing their registration. Restrictions by Hungarian authorities on pro-Tibet demonstrations during last week's visit to Budapest of the Chinese Premier were seen as an unnecessary and heavyhanded limitation of a fundamental liberty. Plans to recall soldiers and police from retirement so that they may oversee Romani work battalions have predictably caused alarm.

In 1989, Hungary stood as an inspiration for democracy and human rights advocates around the globe. Today, I am deeply troubled by the trends there. I understand that it sometimes takes new governments time to find their bearings, and I hope that we will see some adjustments in Budapest. But in the meantime, I hope that other countries looking for transformative examples will steer clear of this Hungarian model.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak as in morning business.