Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rose Fennell, who is a National Park Service fellow working on the staff of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted the privilege of the floor for today's session.

I yield back our time.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 18, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to examine the status of response capability and readiness for oil spills in foreign Outer Continental Shell waters adjacent to U.S. waters.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Abigail_Campbell @energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Allyson Anderson at (202) 224-7143 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-1219.

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, October 19, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills:

S. 544, A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of alternatives for commemorating and interpreting the role of the Buffalo Soldiers in the early years of the National Parks, and for other purposes;

S. 1083, A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the route of the Smoky Hill Trail, an overland trail across the Great Plains during pioneer days in Kansas and Colorado, for study for potential addition to the National Trails System;

S. 1084, A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the routes of the Shawnee Cattle Trail, the oldest of the major Texas Cattle Trails, for study for potential addition to the National Trails System, and for other purposes;

S. 1303, A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish Fort Monroe National Historical Park in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and for other purposes;

S. 1325, A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating sites in the Lower Mississippi River Area in the State of Louisiana as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes;

S. 1347, A bill to establish Coltsville National Historical Park in the State of Connecticut, and for other purposes;

S. 1421, A bill to authorize the Peace Corps Commemorative Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs, and for other purposes;

S. 1478, A bill to modify the boundary of the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site in the State of South Dakota, and for other purposes;

S. 1537, A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to accept from the Board of Directors of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum at the World Trade Center Foundation, Inc., the donation of title to The National September 11 Memorial and Museum at the World Trade Center, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony

for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact David Brooks (202) 224-9863 or Jake McCook (202) 224-9313.

committee on indian affairs

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, October 20, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of this oversight hearing is to examine shale gas production and water resources in the Eastern United States.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Sara Tucker at (202) 224-6224 or Meagan Gins at (202) 224-0883.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 4, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board's Shale Gas Production Subcommittee's 90-day report.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Abigail_Campbell @energy.Senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Allyson Anderson at (202) 224-7143 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-1219.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Stabenow for her work in protecting children's dental coverage. I want to clarify any confusion about the Finance Committee's intent when we adopted her amendment, C- 7, on pediatric dental coverage. As I understand it, her intent was to ensure that commercial stand-alone dental plans could participate fairly in an exchange and could also operate outside an exchange. The Senator expressly provided that these stand-alone dental plans could operate outside State or Federal exchanges.

I thank the Senator for clarifying this issue.

Also Senator Stabenow and I want to thank the Chairman for working so closely with us and a number of our colleagues to ensure that the Affordable Care Act includes children's oral health care as part of the essential benefits package that health insurers must offer in order to participate in health insurance exchanges. In doing so, we fully recognized that too many children suffer needlessly from dental problems that are overwhelmingly preventable and that oral health is integral to their overall health.

Senator Stabenow, I want to be sure that we clarify any confusion about the Finance Committee's intent when we adopted your amendment, C-7, on pediatric dental coverage. As I understand it, the Senator's intent was to ensure that commercial stand-alone dental plans could participate fairly in an exchange. When we adopted the Senator's amendment, we understood that children receiving coverage through an exchange would have the same level of benefits and consumer protections, including all cost sharing and affordability protections, with respect to oral care. This holds true whether they received pediatric oral care coverage from a stand-alone dental plan or from a qualified health plan.

I thank the Senator for clarifying this point.

Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution to encourage all Americans to support October 30, 2011 as a national day of remembrance for past and present workers in the U.S. nuclear weapons program. I am pleased that Senators Alexander, Cantwell, Crapo, Corker, Gillibrand, Graham, McConnell, Mark Udall and Tom Udall, have joined me in introducing this bipartisan legislation.

Since World War II, hundreds of thousands of men and women, including uranium miners, millers, and haulers, have served the United States by building our nuclear defense weapons. We should all take time to remember our fellow Americans who have paid a high price for their service to develop the nuclear program for United States.

Some of these workers have developed disabling or fatal illnesses, and we should recognize their sacrifice and contributions. By honoring nuclear complex workers and uranium miners who have contributed to our nation's defense over the past 6 decades, we will also recognize the sacrifices made by family members who have cared for sick and injured workers. Additionally, the commemoration on October 30th will serve to remind Americans that we still have work to do in ensuring the health and benefits of our nuclear weapons workers.

I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Automatic IRA Act of 2011. When fully phased in, this bill will give nearly 42 million Americans nationwide an easy, effective way to take responsibility for their financial futures and plan for a secure retirement. The Act incorporates the President's call, in his Proposed fiscal year 2010, 2011, and 2012 Budgets, for Congress to enact Automatic IRA legislation.

Currently, about half of American workers have no opportunity to save for retirement at work. In my home State of New Mexico, that share is nearly 60 percent. Among those lacking coverage at work, only one in ten contributes annually to an individual retirement account, IRA; the rest generally make no dedicated savings for retirement. The result? An alarming number of American workers are woefully unprepared for a financially secure retirement. According to Boston College's Center for Retirement Research, ``in 2009 half of today's households will not have enough retirement income to maintain their pre-retirement standard of living, even if they work to age 65, which is above the current average retirement age.'' Especially in this period of economic uncertainty, it is imperative that Congress focus on this retirement savings crisis. My bill takes a common-sense approach to doing so.

Under this bill, most private-sector employees working in establishments of 10 or more employees who are not currently covered by a workplace retirement plan would be given the opportunity to save through regular payroll deposits that continue automatically, unless they elect out. The savings will be deposited into the worker's own IRA, which will be subject to the laws already in place governing IRA accounts. Employers' administrative functions will be minimal. And the arrangement is market-oriented; other than the smallest of accounts, automatic IRAs will be provided by the same banks, mutual funds, insurance carriers, and other institutions that currently provide them.

The automatic IRA approach is intended to help these households overcome the barrier of inertia. It builds on the successful use-- encouraged by reforms I strongly supported the Pension Protection Act of 2006--of automatic features in 401(k) plans that encourage employees toward sensible decisions, while allowing them to make alternative choices. We have already seen evidence that automatic 401(k) enrollment can dramatically boost employee participation rates, from seven in ten eligible workers to 9 in 10. In the 401(k) context, the gains are even more striking for population groups least likely to save, including women, Latino, and low-income workers.

Of the 75 million American workers who now are not covered by employment-based retirement plans, an estimated 42 million would be eligible to save and enroll under Automatic IRA legislation. This includes more than 250,000 in my home state of New Mexico. Many of these individuals are familiar with IRAs. But when asked why they haven't used the existing program, about half point to issues relating to setup and decision-making as the key barriers. The automatic IRA would eliminate these barriers, and the Retirement Security Project estimates that automatic IRA legislation could increase net national saving by nearly $15 billion annually.

This is the fourth consecutive Congress in which I have introduced Automatic IRA legislation. The concept was initially developed by scholars at the Brookings Institution and Heritage Foundation. Indeed, the Automatic IRA concept has long enjoyed broad support across the political spectrum. For instance, Martin Feldstein, chief economic advisor to President Reagan, has described himself as ``a great enthusiast of automatic enrollment IRAs'' who thinks ``as a policy, it's a no-brainer'' and ``can't imagine why there would be any significant opposition from political players on either side of the aisle.''

Finally, this bill seeks to send a strong signal of preference for employers to offer qualified retirement plans,

like 401(k)s. Among other features, it doubles the credit for employers that newly establish qualified plans and it directs the Secretaries of the Treasury and Labor to implement final regulations and establish a model plan for Multiple Employer Plans.

I am grateful that my colleague on the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Kerry, is joining me in introducing this bill. I am also pleased to note the broad range of stakeholders supporting the Automatic IRA concept, including AARP; the American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries; Aspen Institute's Initiative on Financial Security; the Business and Professional Women's Foundation; CFED; Consumers Union; FINRA; the Minority Business Roundtable; New Economics for Women; the United States Black Chamber; the United States Women's Chamber of Commerce; Women Impacting Public Policy; and the Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement.

Ensuring easy access to a retirement account and the ability to have part of their wages go directly from their paycheck into this account are proven strategies to encourage retirement savings. I call on the Senate to take up this bill and give it full consideration.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Automatic IRA Act of 2011. When fully phased in, this bill will give nearly 42 million Americans nationwide an easy, effective way to take responsibility for their financial futures and plan for a secure retirement. The Act incorporates the President's call, in his Proposed fiscal year 2010, 2011, and 2012 Budgets, for Congress to enact Automatic IRA legislation.

Currently, about half of American workers have no opportunity to save for retirement at work. In my home State of New Mexico, that share is nearly 60 percent. Among those lacking coverage at work, only one in ten contributes annually to an individual retirement account, IRA; the rest generally make no dedicated savings for retirement. The result? An alarming number of American workers are woefully unprepared for a financially secure retirement. According to Boston College's Center for Retirement Research, ``in 2009 half of today's households will not have enough retirement income to maintain their pre-retirement standard of living, even if they work to age 65, which is above the current average retirement age.'' Especially in this period of economic uncertainty, it is imperative that Congress focus on this retirement savings crisis. My bill takes a common-sense approach to doing so.

Under this bill, most private-sector employees working in establishments of 10 or more employees who are not currently covered by a workplace retirement plan would be given the opportunity to save through regular payroll deposits that continue automatically, unless they elect out. The savings will be deposited into the worker's own IRA, which will be subject to the laws already in place governing IRA accounts. Employers' administrative functions will be minimal. And the arrangement is market-oriented; other than the smallest of accounts, automatic IRAs will be provided by the same banks, mutual funds, insurance carriers, and other institutions that currently provide them.

The automatic IRA approach is intended to help these households overcome the barrier of inertia. It builds on the successful use-- encouraged by reforms I strongly supported the Pension Protection Act of 2006--of automatic features in 401(k) plans that encourage employees toward sensible decisions, while allowing them to make alternative choices. We have already seen evidence that automatic 401(k) enrollment can dramatically boost employee participation rates, from seven in ten eligible workers to 9 in 10. In the 401(k) context, the gains are even more striking for population groups least likely to save, including women, Latino, and low-income workers.

Of the 75 million American workers who now are not covered by employment-based retirement plans, an estimated 42 million would be eligible to save and enroll under Automatic IRA legislation. This includes more than 250,000 in my home state of New Mexico. Many of these individuals are familiar with IRAs. But when asked why they haven't used the existing program, about half point to issues relating to setup and decision-making as the key barriers. The automatic IRA would eliminate these barriers, and the Retirement Security Project estimates that automatic IRA legislation could increase net national saving by nearly $15 billion annually.

This is the fourth consecutive Congress in which I have introduced Automatic IRA legislation. The concept was initially developed by scholars at the Brookings Institution and Heritage Foundation. Indeed, the Automatic IRA concept has long enjoyed broad support across the political spectrum. For instance, Martin Feldstein, chief economic advisor to President Reagan, has described himself as ``a great enthusiast of automatic enrollment IRAs'' who thinks ``as a policy, it's a no-brainer'' and ``can't imagine why there would be any significant opposition from political players on either side of the aisle.''

Finally, this bill seeks to send a strong signal of preference for employers to offer qualified retirement plans,

like 401(k)s. Among other features, it doubles the credit for employers that newly establish qualified plans and it directs the Secretaries of the Treasury and Labor to implement final regulations and establish a model plan for Multiple Employer Plans.

I am grateful that my colleague on the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Kerry, is joining me in introducing this bill. I am also pleased to note the broad range of stakeholders supporting the Automatic IRA concept, including AARP; the American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries; Aspen Institute's Initiative on Financial Security; the Business and Professional Women's Foundation; CFED; Consumers Union; FINRA; the Minority Business Roundtable; New Economics for Women; the United States Black Chamber; the United States Women's Chamber of Commerce; Women Impacting Public Policy; and the Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement.

Ensuring easy access to a retirement account and the ability to have part of their wages go directly from their paycheck into this account are proven strategies to encourage retirement savings. I call on the Senate to take up this bill and give it full consideration.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, September 15, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nominations of Gregory H. Woods, to be General Counsel, Department of Energy, David T. Danielson, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy), Department of Energy, and LaDoris G. Harris, to be Director for the Office of Minority Economic Impact, Department of Energy.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to allison_seyferth @energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Allison Seyferth at (202) 224-4905.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 21, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider a recently released report by the National Park Service: A Call to Action Preparing for a Second Century of Stewardship and Engagement.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact please contact David Brooks (202) 224-9863 or Jake McCook (202) 224-9313.

Mr. President, I am honored to join with my colleagues in saying a few words about our former colleague, Mark Hatfield.

At the time I came to the Senate, Mark Hatfield had already served for 16 years. For the next 14 years we were colleagues and friends in the Senate. His retirement in 1997 was an occasion for regret for all of us who knew him and admired him. He set a very high standard for service in the Senate.

He was a master of the complex spending and tax issues that are the weekly focus of most Senate work. Of course, in his role as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, he was respected and appreciated for his fair-minded consideration of requests from all Senators--Democrat and Republican and Independent. He was a model of civility and of kindness, and he took a genuine interest in the well-being of those with whom he worked, both Senators and staff and all of those who worked to keep the Senate functioning.

He had a heartfelt commitment to seeking nonmilitary solutions to our Nation's problems around the world, and his votes--including his votes against the Vietnam War--reflected that strongly held commitment.

It was not in Mark Hatfield's nature to be a demagogue on any issue. He saw no advantage, political or otherwise, in twisting issues. The pandering and posturing that afflict much of our political debate today were not part of the politics he practiced.

I considered Mark both a mentor and a friend during the time he served in the Senate and when I was able to serve with him. He has been greatly missed since his retirement from the Senate, and now, of course, our sense of loss is even greater.

Madam President, let me speak for a few minutes about the disappointment I have and I am sure many other colleagues have with the situation we find ourselves in with respect to the partial shutdown of the Federal Aviation Administration.

My colleague from Colorado, Senator Bennet, was on the Senate floor this afternoon and spoke eloquently about how this partial shutdown is affecting his State of Colorado. I wanted to talk briefly about the similar concerns I have for my State of New Mexico.

Frankly, some in this Congress, in my view, have lost sight of what they were elected to do in Washington. Aviation is a critical piece of our transportation infrastructure, a critical piece of our economy. Yet, for nearly a week now, the Congress has failed to extend the necessary authorizations to keep the Federal Aviation Administration doing the work that needs to be done.

It has been over 5 months since the Senate passed its reauthorization bill for aviation programs. That vote was overwhelming; it was 87 to 8. So this was not a partisan bill; this was a bill supported strongly by both Democrats and Republicans.

The bill included a number of programs important to my State of New Mexico and to the entire Nation, including the Airport Improvement Program that provides grants for the construction of runways, taxiways, which help to make airports safer. These projects also create hundreds of jobs in the construction industry in my State and tens of thousands of jobs in the construction industry nationwide.

One of the most important features of the Senate's bill relates to our air traffic control system. Our current system is universally recognized as being antiquated, inefficient, and increasingly it is recognized as being unsafe. The bill we passed out of the Senate dramatically accelerates the FAA's efforts to convert the air traffic control system to one based on satellites and global positioning systems, similar to the GPS many of us have in our cars. When implemented, NextGen--the name given to this improvement of the air traffic control system--will improve safety, will increase efficiency of operations, will reduce delays, and will save fuel and help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Thanks to the good work Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Hutchison in the Commerce Committee did, the Senate passed a good bill to reauthorize aviation programs. That was in February. Then in April, the House passed its own version nearly on a party-line vote. The House majority, unfortunately, chose to include partisan and divisive provisions in that legislation that were not appropriate in an aviation bill.

Let me give a little description of what those partisan and divisive provisions I am referring to are. There was an editorial in the New York Times this morning that summed it up well. It says:

Last year, the National Mediation Board changed a rule to

make it easier for airline and railroad workers to unionize.

Until then, workers who did not vote in union representation

elections were counted as ``no'' votes; after the change

[this is the change by the National Mediation Board--its own

rules] they are counted as abstentions. Pushed by the airline

lobby, House Republicans passed a long-term FAA

reauthorization bill that would have undone the rule change.

The Senate's reauthorization bill, passed in February,

maintained the rule.

In spite of this difference in the two bills, the Senate did appoint conferees, did begin working to resolve differences--as we should have--and working out the required compromise is never easy. Unfortunately, now the House has decided that in order to gain leverage over the Senate to accept the House anti-union provisions, there would not be any additional clean extensions of existing law.

We have had 20 extensions of existing law to just keep the Federal Aviation Administration operating while the House and Senate negotiate the final resolution of this larger bill. Unfortunately, the situation now is that the Congress's failure to extend the authorization one more time has shut down important aviation programs across the country, and 4,000 FAA employees have been furloughed and forced to go without pay. Across the Nation, important airport improvement projects are now on hold.

In New Mexico, $26 million in funding for over two dozen projects has been stopped. These include a new firetruck for the airport in Roswell, runway projects in Raton and Santa Rosa, and snow removal equipment in Clayton and Vaughn. In Santa Fe, work on a vital new radar system has been stopped. In Albuquerque, progress has stopped on a $10 million project to replace the airport parking apron.

What is particularly troubling to me is that the authority to collect the ticket tax has also been suspended. Why should this matter? This is the money that goes into the airport trust fund and allows us to continue to make improvements and maintain our airport infrastructure around the country. This is funding that is used to pay for safety and infrastructure projects at airports in my State and everywhere in the country. As I understand it, it amounts to about $30 million a day being lost from that trust fund. At a time when we are being told the country is falling behind in its investments in basic infrastructure, this loss of funding is clearly going to have major impacts on airport projects down the road.

People also need to realize that the fact that the FAA is no longer able to collect the ticket tax does not mean people don't have to pay the full price they would be paying if the tax were being charged. The airlines, with very few exceptions, have announced they

are going to continue to charge the full price for tickets and pocket the extra money themselves, instead of turning it over for infrastructure projects at our airports.

So here we are. It is simply, in my view, unacceptable for the Congress not to restore to the FAA the authority to collect airline ticket taxes and to resume normal operations.

Senator Rockefeller has introduced a clean extension of the aviation programs. Whatever differences there are between the two bodies in provisions in the short-term extension are trivial compared to this $30 million a day the Nation is losing in funding for our Nation's airport projects.

We all here in the Senate, in the Congress, and in the country, are focused on the need to extend the debt limit, and that is the most urgent need we face, but in addition to that we need to restore to the FAA the authority to resume its normal operations and to resume payments into the airport trust fund. To leave for an August break without having fixed the problem of the lack of FAA authorization as well would be seriously irresponsible.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the editorial from this morning's New York Times entitled ``This Is Called `Small' Government.''

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we have three separate issues facing the Congress. First, the authority of the Treasury Department to borrow to meet the Nation's obligations will be reached on Tuesday. In order for borrowing to continue after Tuesday, Congress needs to raise the debt ceiling. That is the first of the three issues.

The second issue we face is the need to help our economy to become prosperous again. Unfortunately, the debate in Congress has totally lost sight of this issue, the issue of how we can grow the economy and how we can create jobs.

The third of the three issues is the need to put in place a long-term plan to reduce the deficit and the debt. The issue of raising the debt ceiling and reducing the long-term deficit and debt have, unfortunately, come to be seen by many in Congress as a single issue. So I want to urge all colleagues to take a step back and to recognize, first, that these issues are separate and, second, that failure to responsibly deal with the first of these issues; that is, failure to raise the debt limit, will greatly hamper our ability to deal with the other two issues that I mentioned.

The failure to raise the debt limit will not return our economy to prosperity; instead, it will postpone the day when that prosperity returns. Failure to raise the debt limit will not help reduce our debt and deficit. It will add to the debt and deficit by raising interest rates for the government and for all Americans.

So let's review how we got here.

Since the beginning of this Congress nearly 7 months ago, the Republican majority in the House has had a laser focus on one issue; that is, cutting spending. To achieve that objective, the first strategy adopted by the Republican leadership in the House was to threaten a shutdown of the government unless sufficient spending cuts were agreed to. Spending cuts were agreed to, and at the final hour Republicans agreed to pass the bill that was needed to fund the government for the balance of the fiscal year. By that I mean through September 30 of this year.

So as soon as that crisis was averted and the threat to close down the government was behind us, at least for a few months, the effort shifted to a new strategy. This strategy was to threaten a first-in- history default by the government on its financial obligations if enough additional spending cuts were not agreed to; that is, spending cuts in addition to what were agreed to, in order to avert a shutdown of the government. The device for bringing about that default was refusal to extend the debt ceiling when the government's borrowing authority was scheduled to be reached August 2, next Tuesday.

We should remind ourselves of what an artificial device is being used for leverage in this negotiation. Congress passes the laws that determine how much revenue the Federal Government collects, and Congress passes the laws that determine how much we obligate the government to spend. When the revenue we collect is less than the amount we are committed to spend, the Secretary of the Treasury has no alternative but to borrow money to meet the obligations that Congress has taken on.

So in a period like today, when the government is receiving in revenues much less than is required to meet its obligations, there are two logical actions for Congress to take. First, it can raise more revenue; second, it can reduce the obligations of the government. But in refusing to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to borrow, we are taking neither of these logical steps. Instead, we are telling the Secretary of the Treasury to default on the obligations which this and previous Congresses have already taken on on behalf of the American people.

We are told by the Secretary of the Treasury that unless Congress acts he will be forced to default or renege on our obligations beginning next week, August 2. The refusal to raise the debt ceiling and the threatening of default on our obligations has achieved much of what Republicans set out to achieve in this Congress. It has precipitated a crisis and in order to avoid that crisis,

Democrats have agreed to or acceded to the primary demands the Republican majority in the House have made.

What are those demands? There are two primary demands. The first of those demands was that all of the deficit reduction be accomplished with cuts in spending. No revenue could be raised from the wealthiest in our society to help close this gap between revenues and spending; no loopholes could be closed; no subsidies could be eliminated from the Tax Code.

Democrats have agreed that the deficit reduction would not be accomplished with a balanced package of spending cuts and revenue increases as the previous deficit reduction packages have been under President Reagan, under President George H.W. Bush, and of course under President Clinton. This deficit reduction that we are now considering would be done with spending cuts only. So that was the first demand and it was one that Democrats have acceded to.

The second demand of the Republican leadership was the totally arbitrary demand that the size of the increase in the debt ceiling not exceed the amount of spending cuts projected in the Federal budget over the next 10 years. This is a demand totally lacking in any logical justification, but, again, Democrats have agreed in order to achieve a solution to the immediate impasse.

In order to avoid the threatened default on our obligations, Senator Reid has put forward a proposal that would lock in, according to the Congressional Budget Office, about $2.2 trillion of deficit reduction over 10 years with cuts in both discretionary spending and mandatory spending. The Treasury Secretary would be given authority to borrow to meet the obligations that Congress has undertaken for approximately another 18 months. The proposal also puts in place a bipartisan and a bicameral committee with responsibility to present Congress with legislation to further reduce the deficit.

Unfortunately, it appears this proposal that Senator Reid has made will be opposed by many on the Republican side. Some say the cuts are not sufficiently deep and that they would rather push the country into default rather than agree to a mere $2.2 trillion in spending cuts.

Some others say they want to extend the debt ceiling for a shorter period so we can have another showdown with another threatened government default 6 or 7 months from now. Some say that causing the Federal Government to default will not have the adverse consequences the Secretary of the Treasury has predicted and that in fact it will have a salutary effect on both our economy and our politics.

I strongly disagree with all of these views. I believe a refusal to honor our obligations will have a major adverse consequence for our economy. I believe Congress should act now to raise the debt limit in order to avoid these adverse consequences and that, although the proposal Senator Reid has brought forward fails the test of balance between spending cuts and revenue increases which I would prefer, it is a plan I am willing to support in order to head off a default on our Nation's obligations. I understand additional deficit reduction will be required in the months and years ahead, but clearly the responsible course is to do what can be done today and that is adopt the Reid plan. Only by doing so can we once again focus on the steps we can take to return our economy to prosperity. That is the first priority for most Americans today. It should be our first priority as well.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 28, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nominations of Charles McConnell, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Fossil Energy) and Rebecca Wodder, to be Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to allison__seyferth @energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Allison Seyferth at (202) 224-4905.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 3, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills:

S. 1024, to designate the Organ Mountains and other public land as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System and the National Landscape Conservation System in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes;

S. 1090, to designate as wilderness certain public land in the Cherokee National Forest in the State of Tennessee, and for other purposes;

S. 1144, to amend the Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act of 2006 to extend the reduced royalty rate for soda ash;

S. 1149, to expand geothermal production, and for other purposes; and

S. 1344, to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to take immediate action to recover ecologically and economically from a catastrophic wildfire in the State of Arizona, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact David Brooks at (202) 224- 9863 or Jake McCook at (202) 224-9313.