Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of S. 2151 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bill that was introduced this morning. The bill is the Strengthening and Enhancing Cybersecurity by Using Research, Education, Information, and Technology Act, which we refer to as the SECURE IT Act.

This is a very important piece of legislation because we know that cyber attacks are a threat to our country and we need to strengthen our laws to ensure we are protecting our assets, our communication systems, and all of the infrastructure that is run by communications systems.

We are working as a group. Senators McCain, Chambliss, Grassley, Murkowski, Coats, Burr, and Johnson are original cosponsors. All of us are the ranking members on the relevant committees that must deal with cybersecurity.

Senator McCain, the lead sponsor, is, of course, the Armed Services ranking member. I am the ranking member of Commerce, Senator Chambliss of Intelligence, Senator Grassley certainly of Judiciary, and Senator Murkowski of Energy.

It is very important that our relevant committees have come together with our ranking members, and we hope very much to gain support from the Democratic side as well on a bill that we think can get through all of Congress and be signed by the President because the parts of our bill that will strengthen our cybersecurity in this country are, I think, accepted by those who have expertise in this area. For instance, our bill will help prevent the spread of cyber attacks from network to network and across the Internet by removing barriers to sharing information about threats, attacks, and strategies for improvement of defenses. We remove these barriers through addressing the antitrust laws that would allow companies that are sharing information not to be threatened with antitrust suits, because this is a security issue, it is not a competitive issue. Secondly, we want to have liability protection for those who disclose cyber threat information with their peers.

These are things that would be in everyone's interest for us to do, and we do need to address them in legislation. The liability and antitrust protections are available to all companies that would share information, not just those that share with the government but when they can talk to each other, to understand each other's systems.

Further, the SECURE IT Act would require that Federal contractors providing electronic communication or cybersecurity services to Federal agencies share cyber threat information related to those contracts. Of course, when they have contracts with the government, that information is going to be very important so we would require the sharing of information about threats that might jeopardize the system's security.

In addition, the government will develop procedures for the timely sharing of classified, declassified, and unclassified information to ensure that information needed to secure networks is fully accessible to trusted parties.

We are concerned that there are other bills out there that will add another new bureaucracy, another layer of regulation that is not necessary and brings in another agency that would overlay the security agencies that already have systems in place. It would also allow the regulatory bodies for certain areas of interest to handle the cybersecurity rather than another overlay of a new department.

I think so many people in our country who are in business feel they are overwhelmed with duplicative regulations and different agencies they have to report to. We want to streamline whom they have to report to and try to use existing structures and existing regulatory authorities to deal with each individual company or industry so that we don't have to give them yet another new bureaucracy that would then have regulations, if they are deemed to be critical infrastructure. That is when it becomes the regulatory threat.

We believe the private sector is more aware of individual security needs and better equipped than the Department of Homeland Security to secure its own networks, working with its own regulators. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the government itself has had great difficulty in preventing attacks on Federal systems. So we do require that the reporting of Federal contractors go to the Federal security agencies, but we don't think the Federal agencies being in charge of everything is necessarily an improvement.

We want to make sure the Federal Information Security Management Act, which is the law, is actually updated so that the new forms of cyber threats are accommodated in FISMA, the Federal Information Security Management Act, and to strengthen that with the updates.

The legislation also updates the Criminal Code to address cyber crimes, strengthening penalties, improving the Department of Justice's ability to prosecute this kind of criminal who would take down whole systems of our government.

Our bill will prioritize cybersecurity research and development so we can harness innovation to protect our country and our private industries from cyber attacks.

I am very pleased that we have been able to introduce this legislation as an alternative to some of the other bills that have come out. I believe that if we can go forward with negotiating, perhaps we can come to an accommodation with the bills that have been introduced with other sponsors. But we don't think the bills that have been introduced address our concerns and we want to ensure that we do not have another big Federal bureaucracy, that we do not overlay the regulators who already have expertise in this area with new regulators whom we have to train

and deal with. We think the defense agencies--the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the CIA, DHS--all of those with their cybersecurity assets already in place are the better place to put the strength, not reinventing the wheel but better utilizing the systems we already have.

I think it is time for our Senate to address cyber security. I think we have good proposals out there; perhaps we can take the best of those. I think this is the right approach, and Senators McCain, Chambliss, Grassley, and Murkowski were key to drafting this legislation that I think will get the support of all of the stakeholders, as well as the House of Representatives, to actually pass a bill to improve our systems and take it to the President for signature.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bill that was introduced this morning. The bill is the Strengthening and Enhancing Cybersecurity by Using Research, Education, Information, and Technology Act, which we refer to as the SECURE IT Act.

This is a very important piece of legislation because we know that cyber attacks are a threat to our country and we need to strengthen our laws to ensure we are protecting our assets, our communication systems, and all of the infrastructure that is run by communications systems.

We are working as a group. Senators McCain, Chambliss, Grassley, Murkowski, Coats, Burr, and Johnson are original cosponsors. All of us are the ranking members on the relevant committees that must deal with cybersecurity.

Senator McCain, the lead sponsor, is, of course, the Armed Services ranking member. I am the ranking member of Commerce, Senator Chambliss of Intelligence, Senator Grassley certainly of Judiciary, and Senator Murkowski of Energy.

It is very important that our relevant committees have come together with our ranking members, and we hope very much to gain support from the Democratic side as well on a bill that we think can get through all of Congress and be signed by the President because the parts of our bill that will strengthen our cybersecurity in this country are, I think, accepted by those who have expertise in this area. For instance, our bill will help prevent the spread of cyber attacks from network to network and across the Internet by removing barriers to sharing information about threats, attacks, and strategies for improvement of defenses. We remove these barriers through addressing the antitrust laws that would allow companies that are sharing information not to be threatened with antitrust suits, because this is a security issue, it is not a competitive issue. Secondly, we want to have liability protection for those who disclose cyber threat information with their peers.

These are things that would be in everyone's interest for us to do, and we do need to address them in legislation. The liability and antitrust protections are available to all companies that would share information, not just those that share with the government but when they can talk to each other, to understand each other's systems.

Further, the SECURE IT Act would require that Federal contractors providing electronic communication or cybersecurity services to Federal agencies share cyber threat information related to those contracts. Of course, when they have contracts with the government, that information is going to be very important so we would require the sharing of information about threats that might jeopardize the system's security.

In addition, the government will develop procedures for the timely sharing of classified, declassified, and unclassified information to ensure that information needed to secure networks is fully accessible to trusted parties.

We are concerned that there are other bills out there that will add another new bureaucracy, another layer of regulation that is not necessary and brings in another agency that would overlay the security agencies that already have systems in place. It would also allow the regulatory bodies for certain areas of interest to handle the cybersecurity rather than another overlay of a new department.

I think so many people in our country who are in business feel they are overwhelmed with duplicative regulations and different agencies they have to report to. We want to streamline whom they have to report to and try to use existing structures and existing regulatory authorities to deal with each individual company or industry so that we don't have to give them yet another new bureaucracy that would then have regulations, if they are deemed to be critical infrastructure. That is when it becomes the regulatory threat.

We believe the private sector is more aware of individual security needs and better equipped than the Department of Homeland Security to secure its own networks, working with its own regulators. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the government itself has had great difficulty in preventing attacks on Federal systems. So we do require that the reporting of Federal contractors go to the Federal security agencies, but we don't think the Federal agencies being in charge of everything is necessarily an improvement.

We want to make sure the Federal Information Security Management Act, which is the law, is actually updated so that the new forms of cyber threats are accommodated in FISMA, the Federal Information Security Management Act, and to strengthen that with the updates.

The legislation also updates the Criminal Code to address cyber crimes, strengthening penalties, improving the Department of Justice's ability to prosecute this kind of criminal who would take down whole systems of our government.

Our bill will prioritize cybersecurity research and development so we can harness innovation to protect our country and our private industries from cyber attacks.

I am very pleased that we have been able to introduce this legislation as an alternative to some of the other bills that have come out. I believe that if we can go forward with negotiating, perhaps we can come to an accommodation with the bills that have been introduced with other sponsors. But we don't think the bills that have been introduced address our concerns and we want to ensure that we do not have another big Federal bureaucracy, that we do not overlay the regulators who already have expertise in this area with new regulators whom we have to train

and deal with. We think the defense agencies--the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the CIA, DHS--all of those with their cybersecurity assets already in place are the better place to put the strength, not reinventing the wheel but better utilizing the systems we already have.

I think it is time for our Senate to address cyber security. I think we have good proposals out there; perhaps we can take the best of those. I think this is the right approach, and Senators McCain, Chambliss, Grassley, and Murkowski were key to drafting this legislation that I think will get the support of all of the stakeholders, as well as the House of Representatives, to actually pass a bill to improve our systems and take it to the President for signature.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my Republican colleagues for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. President, I think it is obvious all around our country that Americans are struggling right now with gasoline prices. The average American family spent more than $4,000 on gasoline last year, and it will be more this year, with the additional devastating price increases we are seeing now that will wreak havoc on our economy.

The national average price of a gallon of gasoline has gone up every single day for the last 3 weeks. In many parts of our country, prices at the pump are around $4 a gallon. But instead of encouraging an ``all-of-the-above'' approach, which the administration has said it is doing, the administration, instead, has been frustrating every domestic source of energy production that does not conform to a narrow view of alternative fuels.

The President is opposed to increased drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and opening additional areas of the Outer Continental Shelf off the Alaskan coast.

The people of Alaska have voted to support the ANWR drilling because they know ANWR is an area that is the size, approximately, of the State of South Carolina, and the part that would be drilled is approximately the size of Washington National Airport. So they know this would be good jobs for Alaska, and it would not harm the environment at all because the drilling area is so very small in this vast wildlife reserve.

The President has also restricted drilling on Federal lands, opposes the development of shale gas and coal, and will not open additional areas of the Outer Continental Shelf in the lower 48 States. Even though some State legislatures, such as Virginia, have said they would like to do it, the President has shut that down.

The President opposes further drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and nuclear energy is also now on the list, I guess, of moratoria. He has rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline.

What the President does favor is the Saudis increasing oil production and increased use of solar, wind, and algae at home.

Does that substitute for an energy policy? Is that something Americans can count on to increase the supply of energy in our country?

Last week, the President said: We cannot drill our way to lower gas prices. This statement is inaccurate. Increased domestic production will go a long way toward stabilizing gas prices. Why does this President want to turn his back on critical sources of domestic energy which seems incomprehensible to anyone looking at this issue?

So I have colleagues on the Senate floor who come from different States--States where unemployment is high and people are looking for jobs and looking for alternatives.

I would like to turn to the Senator from the great State of Missouri, Mr. Blunt, and ask the Senator from Missouri if he has a view. Is he hearing from his constituents in Missouri?

Would the Senator from Ohio yield.

I think the Senator from Ohio is making such a good point, because here the President is saying producing more will not lower prices. Does that seem like the fundamental supply-and-demand explanation that most economists have adopted in our country, that if you supply more the price will go down? Does not that seem like a non sequitur?

I want to say to the Senator from Ohio that I am very pleased Ohio is getting back into the drilling business. That is creating jobs in a State that I know has had high unemployment. It is so clearly in America's best interests to have our people working.

And, of course, the Keystone Pipeline, which our colleague from North Dakota is going to talk about in a few minutes, is the perfect place to create jobs; instant jobs with not one dime of taxpayer dollars. This would be private dollars invested in a pipeline that would bring oil from our friends in Canada all the way through the United States to the refineries in Texas, which it is estimated would produce 830,000 barrels of oil into gasoline a day--a day. Think of what that would do to the price.

The Secretary of Energy has actually made the statement that we want gasoline prices to increase along the lines of Europe. Oh, really? I wish to ask my friend from Missouri, how would the working people in his State feel about $8 or $9 per gallon, which is what they pay in Europe, as a cost at the pump? What would that do to the economy of Missouri? What would that do to the unemployment in Missouri?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for the point he made about trading with Canada, our ally and closest neighbor, our biggest trading partner, as opposed to having Canada ship the oil they are now producing in the Alberta sands over to China or over someplace else, and sometimes it would be shipped back in or we would be taking oil from the Middle East, and all the things that can happen when oil is being shipped from the Middle East to America are risks we would have to take.

The Senator makes the exact right point. Of course, they should look for markets so their people can be employed. The folly is that America would not be the logical place to say, yes, we want it, of course. Let me give a statistic, and I will ask the Senator from North Dakota his opinion. Frankly, he has been the leader in the Senate to try to get the Keystone Pipeline approved by the State Department and the White House. He has been the leader. I was amazed just yesterday that the White House did a kind of a double backflip with a twist. The Wall Street Journal said it best: ``Obama's Keystone Jujitsu.'' What the administration did, in a mind-numbing kind of logic, was say: We said no after more than 3 years of environmental studies that all approved the Keystone Pipeline coming from Canada down through Oklahoma and into the refineries in Texas. Instead of approving it after more than 3 years of good environmental studies that came out positive, the President said no.

But yesterday, the President said: We will approve and say it is a good idea to do the pipeline from Oklahoma down to Texas. That is not bad; it is great to have that, but the problem is, if we do the 830,000 barrels a day that would come from Canada all the way down to the refineries in Texas, it would produce 34 million gallons of oil a day, or the equivalent of more than 16 million gallons of gasoline.

I ask the Senator from North Dakota, who could be bypassed with this new plan, how is that going to affect the rest of America--not the America between Oklahoma and Texas but the rest of America, including the State of North Dakota? Why would he think the President would think that is a solution?

I wish to make sure the Senator has up to 10 minutes, so I ask unanimous consent for that.

I yield to the Senator from North Dakota for up to 10 minutes. I ask him, how on Earth does this affect the price of gasoline when we could be putting 34 million gallons of oil, or more than 16 million gallons of gasoline a day into people's tanks? How could the President say that would not lower the price?

Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture on Senator Reid's amendment No. 1633 to the highway bill. The bill we are getting ready to vote on puts the other titles into the highway bill from the Commerce Committee, Finance Committee, and Banking Committee.

I am going to object on the grounds that the Commerce Committee title is not the title that should be included in this bill. What happened is that there was a partisan amendment that was added to a markup very late that the minority had not had a chance to work out before it went to the markup. We thought it wasn't going on the markup, but it did go on the markup before we were able to have the input and work it in a better way, which has been our usual position in the Commerce Committee.

The bill would create an unfunded, unlimited discretionary grant program that has divided the transportation community. It will add a new Assistant Secretary for Freight Planning and Development and a whole new office in the Department of Transportation. This is a part of the bill that certainly none of the Republicans can support, and it caused a party-line vote in the Commerce Committee.

Additionally, the bill that will be before us contains provisions that would create two new programs within the Research and Innovative Technology Administration that would cost taxpayers $28 million annually to administer, and the CBO estimates the underlying bill would cost $615 million for 10 years including these two new programs. That would be about double what the levels are for this program in today's terms. So the next 10 years would have been at $318 million if we had kept it at static levels, which we are doing in most other parts of the highway bill. Instead, the bill we are voting on today would more than double that to $615 million over the next 10 years for RITA.

We don't have to have this kind of partisan effort on the bill. Our Commerce Committee has been very good at bipartisan work. I see the Senator from California on the floor who has worked in a bipartisan way with the Senator from Oklahoma on the underlying bill. But the Commerce bill that came out was not bipartisan.

We have worked hard with Senator Rockefeller and we have informed all of our Members on both sides to get a consensus, and we got one. We got a consensus that would have taken the Freight Act part of it that set policies for new freight studies--we did that. That part would be in the compromise bill. It keeps the funding in line with current levels in the Research and Innovative Transportation Administration. But those compromise provisions that Senator Rockefeller and all of our staffs of the whole committee worked on are not in the bill we are voting on today.

We worked together relating to the importation of motor vehicles and equipment in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reauthorization bill. It would stop unsafe equipment from entering our ports. We worked hard to put forward language that provides inspectors the right tools while at the same time minimizing unnecessary costs and burdens on equipment manufacturers. Again, the modifications are in the bill that we agreed to with the majority in the Commerce Committee, but they are not in the bill

that came out of the committee and the bill that is on the floor today.

The first package of reported bills did not contain a rail title at all. So if the bill that is before us today is accepted and cloture is invoked, we will have a Senate highway bill that does not have a rail provision. We will go to conference without a Senate position on a rail provision, which the House has.

Senator Rockefeller and I have worked together on this rail part. We have worked with all of the stakeholders in the rail industry as well as Amtrak, and we have come forward with a bill the Republicans support and most of the Democrats support on the committee. It will lead to better rail planning at the Department of Transportation, and it will enhance rail economic regulation on the Surface Transportation Board. The rail title would also allow the commuter and freight rails to apply for extensions for implementation of positive train control on an as- needed basis, and it directs the DOT to use the 2015 route map to implement positive train control, as Congress intended when it passed its law in 2008.

All of these important policy gains will be lost if we adopt the cloture vote today. I hope my colleagues will vote no on cloture so we can put the provisions that have been agreed to on a bipartisan basis in the bill so that the Commerce title will reflect the full Commerce Committee, rather than what came out that had not been fully vetted and is not the position of the full Commerce Committee, with Republicans and Democrats together. I hope we will have that chance to put the new version together that would include the compromises that have been made on a bipartisan basis.

I am happy to yield.

If I understand the question of the Senator from California, if we can substitute at some point the compromise language in the Commerce title, I am going to be absolutely supportive of this bill because I trust Senator Rockefeller. We have worked together. We have both given. He doesn't like parts of this bill, I don't like parts of it, but we have given.

I would say the Senator from California has done a stellar job with the Senator from Oklahoma on the underlying bill. Oh my gosh, what a complicated bill. The Senator from California is the chairman, the ranking member is from Oklahoma, and they have worked for the good of America on this bill. The Banking Committee has a bipartisan title. I believe there is a compromise coming forward in the Finance Committee. I am not familiar with that, but I know the compromise title of the Commerce Committee has been worked through fully with everybody on board, and it will be acceptable, I believe, to the whole Senate.

So I think we are just a little premature today. I think we need to stop cloture. I think we need to make the changes that are required, and I think this bill will sail in the future.

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

Madam President, I wish to comment on the remarks of the leader just a few minutes ago.

I came to talk about the budget, which I want to do, that was produced by the President. But I will say we had a vote on going to the highway bill last week and the vote was 85 to 11. So Republicans are ready to go to the highway bill.

We have talked about what a great job Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe did in the committee, working together, to produce a bill. Senator Rockefeller and I have negotiated what is a good settlement on the Commerce part of that bill, and I think we are going to have to have separate votes on the party-line committee vote that was made in Commerce and have a compromise that I think Senator Rockefeller and I will both support going forward.

But I think we just need to get on it. It is just time to go. We don't need to stand here and talk about not being able to move. Let's move. Republicans are ready. Let's go.

Madam President, I do wish to speak about the fiscal year 2013 budget that came out this week from the President, and I guess I would start by saying here we go again. Here we go again.

We have another budget given to us by the President that increases spending and increases taxes to a huge extent. It is stunning, $1.9 trillion in tax increases in the President's proposal over the next decade.

Instead of coming forward and giving responsible solutions to a $1 trillion annual deficit--which is what we have, $1 trillion. My gosh, we didn't even have debt that was $1 trillion. Now we have debt that is almost $16 trillion, and we are talking about more deficits?

Most important, the President didn't put anything in his budget on entitlement reform. So he gave us another budget proposal that spends too much, borrows too much, and taxes too much, which is the same thing that happened last year.

The President's request proposes $11 trillion in gross new debt--$11 trillion in gross new debt--over the next 10 years that would make our total national debt, if we stuck to this budget, $25.9 trillion in 2022. Oh, my gosh, $25.9 trillion, and we are talking about this as a serious proposal? These numbers are untenable. It is a path that is unthinkable for this country.

So $1.4 trillion of the President's proposed tax increases over the next decade would fall on individuals. The budget that the President put forward explicitly states: Immediate broad tax cuts for the middle class are far more effective at creating jobs and growing the economy. I would agree with that. Broad tax cuts for the middle class would be effective at creating jobs and growing the economy.

But the President fails to acknowledge where the tax increases fall. It is on the people who own and work in small businesses, and they are the ones who have the ability to hire if we would let them.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 50 percent of all flowthrough business income will be subject to the proposed tax increases. The National Federation of Independent Business reports that 75 percent of small businesses pay taxes on their business income at the individual tax rate because they are organized as flowthrough businesses, such as partnerships, S corporations, LLCs, and sole proprietorships. So the President is going to the heart of the potential hiring in our economy; that is, small business, and they are going to increase taxes.

I would say the constant drumbeat of this administration for new taxes is putting a blanket on present-day potential hiring. It is putting a blanket on growth because our small businesses see the President continuing to come forward again and again and again and talk about new taxes on the people who could create jobs.

Incredibly, the $1 trillion in new taxes doesn't even pay down the debt. It doesn't lower the deficit. The new taxes the President is proposing just increase spending. Oh, my gosh. Instead of cutting deficits and responsible spending cuts, we are talking about new taxes and new spending.

Where have we heard this before? We have heard it out of Washington, DC, for years. It is the wrong approach, and it is why we are in trouble right now with a $15 trillion debt.

Instead, we need to have sensible spending reductions that meet the caps set under the Budget Control Act and carefully considered investments in strategic, nationally important projects that will have a long-term effect on job increases because of creativity and entrepreneurship.

We must cut spending. It is simple. That is it. We have to cut spending if we are going to get our fiscal house in order.

Most important, we need to address entitlements, which the President did not do in his budget proposal. If there is anything urgent in this country that the President should take the leadership position to do, it is a bipartisan approach to entitlement reform. Our fiscal problems are inextricably linked if we can't fix our broken entitlement system.

Today, mandatory spending--entitlements--are approximately 55 percent of our Federal budget. So we have less than half the budget in the discretionary spending that we pass appropriations for each year. If we don't take that other 50 percent and stop that growth, do you know what is going to happen?

According to the Congressional Budget Office, our mandatory spending by 2022--10 years from now--will be approximately 74 percent of total Federal spending. Over seventy percent of Federal spending will be mandatory. This is out of control.

If we are going to stop this growing deficit and debt cycle, we have to address entitlements. People are living longer than they were living when Social Security was passed in 1935, but we have not addressed that change in our demographics to make sure the program will last. The longer we put it off, the harder it is going to be. If we do not solve this problem, current and future retirees will confront a guaranteed 23 percent cut in benefits in 2036. In today's dollars, that would be a $271 cut in a beneficiary's monthly payment. There is not anyone here who wants that to happen--we know that.

I have introduced legislation with Senator Kyl, the ``Defend and Save Social Security Act.'' It gradually increases the retirement age over 11

years--that is how gradual it is. It would go from 66 to 67 to 68 and end at 69--over 11 years. It is 3 months a year that the increase would occur, and it decreases the annual cost-of-living adjustment if it exceeds 1 percent. When inflation goes above 1 percent, the cost-of- living adjustment will kick in. So if you have rampant inflation, such as 2 or 3 percent, there will be a cost-of-living adjustment. My bill with Senator Kyl will make the Social Security trust fund solvent through 2085 without raising taxes or cutting core benefits.

Saving our programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, will require bipartisan leadership. We cannot do it with one party. We cannot do it with one party because of the 30-second ad. We must do it together.

I know my time is up, and my colleague from Arkansas is on the Senate floor. I would just say that we could cut $416 billion, nearly $\1/2\ trillion over 10 years, if we would start addressing just Social Security right now. Let's do it with bipartisan leadership, starting with the President, the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats, and the House, which is controlled by Republicans. We will have to do it together. Let's do it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee for all that he said. I really appreciate working with him. Clearly, because of 23 extensions, you know this was a hard bill to pass.

Since 2007, we have been trying to reauthorize the FAA and particularly increase aviation safety and put our NextGen air traffic control system in place. That has been the primary moving force. But, as is often the case, it is other issues that have come to the forefront and caused the delay after delay after delay process in passing this bill. We did pass it through the Senate and now have come out with a conference report between the House and Senate.

So I really first have to say thank you for the leadership of Senator Rockefeller, which has been quiet and effective and letting the different Members with different interests, of which there were many on this bill, have their say--and he was very calm throughout the process--because in the end we all know that none of us are dictators, none of us are the sole arbiters of what comes out of the Senate. We are a body of 100. We have colleagues on the other side who are 435. So obviously some people are going to have to give in certain areas. But what is good about the bill before us today is that the major principles have been addressed and the people who were most affected by those have been able to see the big picture that we needed to address in this bill, that we give our airports the ability to grow, expand, and repair with the aviation trust fund, which the passage of this bill will do. It will be in a stable environment because we have 4 years after this bill is passed.

I thank the chairman and all who have worked on this bill. As everyone knows, the repeated use of short-term extensions does not allow for the long-term planning that is needed on the big projects, such as NextGen, the air traffic control system that will be based on satellites or the airport improvements that are so important for our smooth aviation system to function.

So what we are doing today is asking the Senate to pass the conference report the House has already passed. When we pass it, which is my hope today, it will go to the President for signature, and it will provide that clear, stable way forward for our airports and the FAA to operate and make the sound fiscal investments in ensuring that we have a good and seamless system.

First, the bill does improve aviation safety, including the development of a plan to reduce runway incursions and operational errors, along with significant safety improvements for helicopter emergency medical service operators and their patients.

The bill modernizes our antiquated air traffic control system and moves us one step closer to a more efficient and effective use of our national air space. Specifically, it focuses on advancing the next- generation air transportation system that we call NextGen, and it improves the management practices and oversight of the agency in the modernization effort.

When fully implemented, NextGen will fundamentally transform air traffic control from a ground-based radar system to a satellite-based system that uses global positioning navigation and surveillance digital communications and more accurate weather services. It is our belief that most of the other countries in the world have NextGen already, but America has the biggest aviation transportation system in the world, and therefore, when we come up to speed, it will make the seamless air traffic control system globally better.

Some people will say: Well, NextGen--what does it mean? Well, it is going to open more airspace for our airplanes' use, both scheduled and general aviation. It will reduce delays because we are going to have better scheduling. We are going to have more accurate capabilities to schedule, and therefore it will open more airspace for use by our general aviation as well as our scheduled carriers. As we know, our scheduled carriers will be growing in the future. They are restructuring and trying to accommodate us. But more and more people and bigger populations are going to produce more need for aviation traffic.

Special attention is given to the acceleration certification planning and implementation of critical NextGen technologies. We have established in the bill clear deadlines for the adoption of technology and navigational procedures which will allow for a more precise and fuel-efficient use of our national airspace.

This conference report also moves forward initiatives associated with the integration of the unmanned aircraft system--the UAS--into the national airspace. We are seeing now more and more applications of unmanned aircraft, and it is going to increase.

We are looking at border security using UAV research, law enforcement, firefighting, just to name a few. There are going to be more and more uses for unmanned aerial vehicles to be able to do the surveillance and photographing that have taken helicopter pilots and small general aviation and even large aircraft to do in the past. So our bill begins to have a process for our air traffic control system to accommodate these UAVs.

Finally, the bill finds compromise in several difficult areas. Chairman Rockefeller has mentioned several of those. The Ronald Reagan Washington National Perimeter Rule, the air carriage of lithium batteries, and small-community air service are among the compromises that were reached in this bill.

It is time that we finally create some stability in the aviation sector. This bill will do that. I encourage my colleagues to support its passage.

I would like to go ahead, since we do have time--actually, I do see someone waiting to speak. Since we will be on the floor until the vote, I will yield the floor at this time and finish the rest of my statement later.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we will be voting in an hour and a half, but I would like to take this opportunity to thank so many of the people who brought this bill together, which we hope will come to a good conclusion in about an hour and a half.

Obviously, I have talked about Chairman Rockefeller. This has been a long process, clearly--23 extensions and it has been since 2007 that we had the last authorization. I think the fact we are now going to have a 4-year authorization is one of the more important elements. Now our airports are going to be able to start their building projects. They are going to be able to increase their runway space or do repairs or whatever the priorities are that are decided by the FAA are the most important priorities for our Nation because the funding source from the highway trust fund will now be known for 4 years. I think that is a very important step in the right direction.

I wish to thank the House managers of this bill as well, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Mica and Ranking Member Rahall and the respective Aviation Subcommittee chairs in the House, Representatives Petri and Costello. Their work and input on their bill was certainly critical, and the ability to come to conference and hammer it out was critical as well.

In the Senate, I wish to thank all our conferees, Senators Hatch, Isakson, and DeMint on our side and, additionally, Senators Cantwell and Thune, the respective chair and ranking member of the Commerce Committee's Aviation Subcommittee, for their work on the bill.

The staff, of course, are the ones who work long hours, and though we never see them, they are there. Senator Rockefeller and I were having telephone calls at 10 o'clock at night, then we would call our staffs and then call back to determine what was happening and what needed to be happening. So I thank the person who runs the Commerce Committee on the majority side, Ellen Doneski, who is wonderful to work with, James Reid, Gael Sullivan,

Rich Swayze, and Adam Duffy, who worked on this bill and the negotiations for all these years that we have been trying to pass this; on Representative Mica's staff, Jim Coon, Holly Woodruff Lyons, Bailey Edwards, and Simone Perez; on Representative Rahall's staff, Jim Zoia, Ward McCarragher, Giles Giovinazzi, and Alex Burkett; and on my staff, the Commerce Committee minority side, Todd Bertoson, Richard Russell, and Jarrod Thompson.

I wish to especially mention Jarrod Thompson, who is the one I know the best, because he is the Aviation Subcommittee ranking member's staff leader. He knows the history of the aviation bills. He knows the subject matter. There was never a time when I would ask a specific or technical question that Jarrod didn't know the answer, and I so appreciate his being on our staff and helping us through this very important time.

With that, I yield the floor, and I thank all my colleagues and our House colleagues and staff for their work on this bill that I hope we will be able to pass when the vote comes at 5:30 this afternoon.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I speak immediately following the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, I am going to speak about the debt disapproval resolution that is before us because I feel so strongly it is time to send a strong message to the President and give the people of America some comfort that we are not going to continue to raise the debt ceiling again and again without doing something that shows we understand the crisis we are in and that we are going to take the steps necessary to whittle down our debt and do the responsible thing. However, I do want to respond to what has just been said about the recess appointment of Mr. Cordray, the Director of the new consumer agency, which was done by the President when Congress was out of session, depriving Congress of the ability to advise and consent to this appointment.

I think to put it in the context where it is proper, it is very important to know that this consumer agency was created by a Democratic President who had complete Democratic control of Congress and gave this agency unprecedented power--unprecedented in that the agency has no congressional oversight. None. We don't control the budget. In fact, no one controls the budget of this new agency that was created with complete Democratic control of Congress and the Presidency.

This agency was created in the Dodd-Frank bill with no oversight by any entity whatsoever other than the Democratic President who signed the bill that was given to him by the Democratically controlled Congress. So Mr. Cordray is now the head of an agency without congressional approval, and Congress has no control over its budget, and we now have the possibility of a burgeoning new Federal bureaucracy that is going to put more regulations on probably the most overregulated industry in America today, which is the banking industry.

If you talk to anybody out there trying to get capital in a small business, they will tell you that the banks are being hamstrung. So now we are going to give them more regulations that are going to put a freeze on their capability to make consumer small loans. The banking industry has plenty of regulation, and the Comptroller of the Currency does a good job. Certainly the FDIC has done its job in trying to make sure that the reserves are met for banks to be stable because we are not going to be bailing out banks.

I heard the President of the United States talking at his State of the Union Message. I heard him say: We are going to go through this government, and we are going to cut back on regulations because we know regulations can hamper the ability of our small businesses to get up and get out there and hire people and make a profit. We think profit is good because we think profit makes people able to hire more people and get this economy going.

So there is a constitutional issue at stake where the President just decided that Congress was out of session and appointed Mr. Cordray. In any other instance, Congress would have some say because we would be able to set a budget for the agency and we would be able to curb some of its overreach if we feel that it is there; however, not this agency because there is no congressional oversight of this agency.

So we are in a position where we have Mr. Cordray--and let me say there is nothing personal against Mr. Cordray, but there is a lot that is wrong with Mr. Cordray being appointed by the President rather than being confirmed by the Senate, which is in the law. There is a problem when there is no congressional oversight whatsoever that would be able to curb the overregulation that we suspect is going to happen in this agency.

This is not the end of this subject. Today we are going to be voting on the increase in the debt limit by $1.2 trillion. What do we already have on the books for debt? It is $15.2 trillion, which is a figure that is now equal to or more than our gross domestic product. We are not talking about Greece, we are talking about the United States of America. We should be the beacon of economic stability in the world, and we are here to raise the debt limit without so much as a plan to curb spending or to look at the entitlement reforms we know are necessary because we cannot cut enough spending in the discretionary accounts to actually do what we must do to whittle down a $15 trillion debt because the discretionary accounts are approximately 30 percent of the total expenditures of our country.

The major responsibility this country has in defense is getting ready to be shredded by this administration, while we have a new consumer agency that has unfettered budgetary authority. Where is our perspective here? We are talking now about 30 percent of the budget that we spend, the spending in our country, being discretionary accounts, and we are hearing today that the President is going to cut enormous numbers out of our defense budget, but

at the same time we hear very little talk about entitlements, which are the automatic expenditures we cannot control. If the President were to lead, he would be going into the entitlements and providing some solutions and some leadership. The Republicans have said repeatedly: We will work with you on entitlements because we know it is hard.

I have introduced legislation--along with Senator Kyl--that would begin the process of shoring up Social Security and saving our system. In fact, it is called the Defend and Save Social Security Act, and it would cover a 75-year shortfall without raising taxes and without cutting core benefits. Anyone in our plan who is 58 years of age or older would not be affected at all. However, starting in 2016, under our bill, the normal retirement age would start to increase 3 months each year for normal retirement. So if you are 58 or above, it would not affect you at all. If you are 57, you would retire 3 months later. If you are 56, you would retire 6 months later. That would begin to put us on a much more accurate table of when people are actually living and retiring. The actuarial tables show that people are healthier now than when Social Security passed, they work longer, they want to work longer, and we need to make the actuarial tables match today's standards of health and work.

In addition, my bill would propose a very modest change in the annual cost-of-living adjustment. We would begin the cost-of-living adjustment if inflation is over 1 percent, and at that point we would factor in whatever the inflation rate is. So it would be a minor adjustment in the cost-of-living adjustment, but we would never go into the core benefits, nor would we tax anyone any more than they are being taxed right now. That is how we can address this in a gradual way and give our Social Security system the ability to stay solid and secure for 75 years.

We have not heard the President of the United States talk about correcting something as solid and necessary as Social Security. We have not heard anything from him about helping to solve the Medicare problem, which is a different issue, but clearly it must be addressed because we are going into deficits every month, every week, and every day on Medicare.

The missing ingredient--and what the President has said in his State of the Union and what actually needs to happen--is entitlement reform. Republicans have said: We will work with you on tax reform that will produce more revenue with a fairer, flatter tax system, and one that will make our businesses and corporations more competitive. If we put our corporations at a better competitive position in the world, then they are going to hire more people. If we can do that with the President, we can make a difference in this debt and the deficits. However, all I am hearing is kind of a class warfare argument. It just seems old and stale because I think the American people are smarter than that. I think the American people know that if businesses are hiring and if we can get an economy that is robust and strong with more people working, everybody is going to do better, and that is what we all want.

Raising taxes, which is the only option the President seems to care about, is not what we ought to be doing in a recession. You can dance around it, but if this is not a recession, then I don't know what it is with millions of people not working and almost a 9-percent unemployment rate. I don't know what the definition of ``recession'' is by the economists, but I think that when millions of people are not working and the unemployment rate is about 9 percent, that is a time when you don't want to increase taxes and increase the burden on businesses with a health care plan that is out of control. It is freezing hiring.

It is not rocket science, and it is time we got together with the President of the United States. He is the elected leader of our country, and we don't need partisan rhetoric and campaign speeches. What we need to do is look at the real capability we have to do something about this deficit; that is, cut domestic spending in a reasonable way, address entitlement reform, which we can do, and for heaven's sake, tax reform that creates a fairer, flatter tax and gives our corporations the ability to compete globally would be a step in the right direction.

I hope we reject his request. Let's not increase the debt limit. Let's sit down and get to work on bringing the debt down so we will never go beyond $15 trillion in debt for our country and our future generations.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. President, I rise because this week is going to be a very important week for voting on the President's request to raise our debt ceiling.

Our debt is $15.2 trillion. The President is going to ask for a $1.2 trillion increase in that debt. These are astronomical numbers. Anyone looking at this can see we are spiraling out of control in very short order.

To put it in perspective, the gross domestic product ratio to debt has been in the range of 40 percent debt to our gross domestic product. Today, we are surpassing 100 percent. We don't hear numbers such as these except in certain places in Europe. This is untenable.

When President Obama was sworn into office, the Federal debt was $10.6 trillion. In just under 4 years, the United States has accumulated more than $5 trillion in new debt. Let's place the President's request in context.

The $1.2 trillion he is asking to increase the debt ceiling will not even cover last year's deficit, which was $1.3 trillion. We are in an untenable situation and we must do something about it. I think most people who are focusing on this believe that. But instead, attempts to cut the deficit are met with proposals to do--what? Increase taxes, taxes to pay for current spending and even new spending on top of the current levels.

In the coming weeks, the President will unveil his fiscal year 2013 budget. Last year, the fiscal year 2012 budget the President put forward totaled $3.7 trillion, and he proposed over $1.6 trillion in new taxes over a 10-year period.

These figures demonstrate the fundamental problem we have in this country, which any small businessperson looking at this can tell us; that is, we have chronic deficit spending.

We must accept the fact that mandatory spending accounts for more than half of all Federal spending, and the entitlement spending is open-ended. The reality is, Social Security is currently operating in the red. Benefits are exceeding payroll tax revenue. The programs that are in the entitlement section of our budget are in dire need of being updated. We must gradually reform Social Security to meet current life expectancy rates. I have introduced a bill to do that, along with Senator Kyl.

It is very important that the President take the lead on entitlement spending. Yet from all the things we have heard from the President about what he is going to propose at the State of the Union address and what he is going to put in his budget, there is no entitlement reform included. Instead, it is more spending and more taxes to cover the spending.

The fact remains, we must change the course of this country. If we fail to do so, we are going to be at the same point later this year because that is when we could reach the new debt ceiling of $16.4 trillion if the President's request is granted by Congress.

The precedent is vivid. Look how quickly the initial $900 billion request set forth under the Budget Control Act last August has been exhausted--$900 billion gone since August. This is January. That is a stunning figure. A coherent, comprehensive policy regarding our Nation's debt ceiling is nonexistent.

In order to correct our current fiscal problems, we must align spending to match incoming revenues. American businesses and households know this. They do it every month, every week. Why shouldn't our government be held to the same standards?

We have not had a true debt limit set by this administration. The President continually requests increases in the debt ceiling without addressing the core problem, which is spending.

While the Budget Control Act included discretionary spending caps and a 2013 sequestration, it did not go far enough. No targets were set forth for our debt limit or for our annual deficits.

We need to take our caps on spending further. Each year, the caps should bring us closer to a balanced budget. We should have a target to bring, over 10 years, the debt down to a specific level. We should be able to set this with leadership from the President. This year, we must focus on cutting our deficits and aligning spending with revenues.

We are going to have this vote on Thursday, we are told. We have the time and the means to implement a sensible reform for our entitlement programs. That is not going to happen in a vacuum, and it is not going to happen with just the President or with just the Republicans or with just the Democrats in Congress. We have to address entitlement issues together.

The Social Security bill I have introduced gradually increases the age at which Social Security would be available to retirees. We all know people are living longer. They are working longer. They are healthier longer. The actuarial tables don't match the Social Security program that was put in place 50 years ago. It does not work. We have to take the reins.

If the President would work with Congress to do that, my bill increases the normal retirement age by 3 months per year. So it is a very gradual increase. No one would be affected over the age of 58 under my plan. But if one is 57, the normal retirement age would be 3 months later. So it is a plan that can work. With that minor adjustment, we could make 75 years of Social Security solvent, along with a small decrease in the cost-of-living increase but nothing on the core benefit. There would be no cut in the core benefit, only a 1- percent decrease in the cost-of-living increase. If inflation goes above 1 percent, there would be a cost-of-living adjustment.

I think everyone would rather have a sound Social Security system and know it is there for them as a cushion. As we know, Social Security was not supposed to be a retirement plan. It was supposed to be a safety net, and it is a safety net for many people in our country.

We are also trying to encourage more saving by people for security in retirement. That is why, when we are talking about the 15-percent tax on capital gains and dividends, it is because we are encouraging people to save for their retirement security. We are a country, unfortunately, that has a very low savings rate. Compared to most other countries in the world, Americans save very little. The 15-percent capital gains and dividends rate is meant to encourage savings and helping people to plan and support their own retirement in addition to Social Security.

If we made Social Security solvent, it would also bring down the deficit, and we could do it in a gradual way. If we and the President don't take the reins now in a bipartisan way and we keep marching along the same path, we are going to have drastic cuts in the actual benefit, in the core benefit going forward. That would be a tragedy. It would be wrong for our children. It would be wrong for the next generation for us not to be able to address this in a bipartisan way. I hope the President will mention this in the State of the Union address. I hope he will make that a part of his efforts in this last year of his administration before the election.

I haven't heard any talk of that. In the previews I have heard of the State of the Union address, we are not hearing anything about entitlement reform. Yet it is more than half of the federal budget. We know that we have to cut spending if we are going to actually bring down the deficits and start peeling away this cancerous debt we have accumulated in this country, $5

trillion in the last 3 years and $10 trillion accumulated up until 3 years ago.

It is my hope we will start a leadership in the administration tonight at the State of the Union--a leadership that we haven't seen yet because all we have seen are the same old tax-and-spend proposals we are used to seeing. It is nothing new and nothing fresh. But the people of America know we have to change course. The people of America in the polls say, by huge numbers, we are going in the wrong direction in this country. Seventy percent of Americans have said in the latest polls of ``How do you feel about where we are now,'' 70 percent believe this country is going in the wrong direction.

Only we can do something about it, along with the President, and I hope he will provide the leadership. But I don't think raising the debt ceiling, with no plan in the future to cut spending is going to happen this week. That is not leadership, and I hope there will be a change in direction.

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

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

Mr. President, we seem to be heading to an agreement

today. At this point, the House appears to be ready to vote on the conference report on the appropriations bills for the rest of the fiscal year, which would be until the end of September of next year. I think this is good. We came to an agreement in August called the Budget Control Act. It was a 10-year commitment to lower spending, lower our deficits. It required a cap in each of the next 10 years that would be a down payment on our debt, would lower the deficit and lower the debt.

The Omnibus appropriations bill, obviously, because it has so many different agencies in it, rather than each separate agency bill going forward as we have done normally in the past in the Senate--because it has so many, there are people who are going to disagree with parts of it. There is no getting around that. The military construction, of which I am on the subcommittee and have chaired it in the past, is part of this bill. So are many of the other bills that are very important for the functioning of our government.

However, the appropriations bill sticks with the agreement we all made. In August, there was a lot of negotiation on how we deal with the debt. To be honest, I did not think it was enough. Many of us did not think it was enough. But we have not been able to come to terms between the two Houses of Congress and with the President on how we can do more and get the votes to do it and get the President to sign the bill.

So I am not saying we are going to agree with everything in this Omnibus appropriations bill. But every one of these bills did go through the committee, and they have been vetted. They did keep the agreement. We have lowered the spending across the board. We set the final fiscal year 2012 funding at $1.043 trillion. This is $7 billion less than last year's level, and it is almost $100 billion less than the President's request.

Now, it is not enough for many people in this body, but we all voted in the majority; 74 separate Members voted in favor of the Budget Control Act, and the appropriations bills all have met those caps. That is something I do not hear said very often in this body, that we have met the caps.

I was vice chairman, the ranking member, of one of the very important appropriations committees that funded NASA, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice. We met these caps. It was hard. Each one of the subcommittees of the Appropriations Committees on the Senate side met the caps, even though we had to cut and balance and set priorities and not fund some of the important areas that we would like to have funded. But that is what choosing and prioritizing are about. That is why we made the agreement, and we stuck to it. So when all of these appropriations bills are complete, we will have cut discretionary spending for 2 years in a row for the first time in modern history, frankly, really cut.

So now we are working toward cutting the deficits over a 10-year period as we agreed we would do. In the next few days, I hope we are going to take fiscal year 2012 off the books and immediately focus our attention on long-term deficit reduction and, hopefully, comprehensive tax reform because the real issue is how we are going to get the debt down more.

We are talking about a $15 trillion debt. If we cut the debt $1 trillion, it is a down payment. But I think we need to do more in a responsible way. But we cannot do it all in discretionary spending. If we are going to do what the taxpayers elected us to do, then we are going to have to deal with entitlements. We are going to have to deal with Social Security reform and Medicare reform.

Everyone knows, common sense tells us, Social Security has changed since the time it was passed and today when people are living longer and retiring later. But we have not accommodated those changes. We have not set the actuarial tables that would sustain Social Security for the next 75 years. We could do it by just very gradually, 3 months a year only, increasing the age of retirement; put a cap on it at 68 or 69. We could bring Social Security into balance.

We would also have to make adjustments in the cost of living increases. But we would not have to raise taxes, and we would not have to cut the core benefits in any reduction. So we can do this and make significant deficit reductions so the $15 trillion starts coming down. That is our debt.

We have to deal with Social Security reform. I have introduced legislation, the Defend and Save Social Security Act, with Senator Kyl as my cosponsor that has done exactly that. Other Senators have introduced legislation. Senator Paul introduced legislation that would gradually bring down the Social Security deficit, which would also bring down the debt of our country. This is responsible. I am going to push next year to try to get this Social Security reform.

But in the next 2 days we are going to deal with discretionary spending because that is all we have on the table to deal with, and we are going to keep the agreements we made in the Budget Control Act, which 74 Members of the Senate supported. The appropriators have kept their word. Every single bill has had a cap on spending. Where we have the capability to deal with discretionary spending--and that is all we have, we cannot deal with entitlements until we have entitlement reform. But in discretionary spending, the appropriators have kept their word. That is what we will be voting on, to keep the word that 74 Senators agreed was the right approach.

We are going to vote on a bill that will be passed by the House today and, hopefully, be passed by the Senate tonight or tomorrow as our leader has said we will. I hope we can pass that bill.

We also have to deal with the long term. We are not going to be able to do it in the next 2 days, but surely when we come back next year we can pick up tax reform. We can put our Tax Code in a better structure so our corporations will bring their businesses that are now overseas back to America. Those are going to be jobs in America. That is how we want to create revenue in this country, not by taxing the people who would hire people but by having an equitable Tax Code that will make corporations do their business here so people will have jobs, and they will increase their revenue and the economy of our country.

That is the way we need to deal with the long term. We need to deal with entitlement reform and Tax Code reform. We do not have a revenue problem in this country. We do not have a problem with people paying too little in taxes. We have a spending problem that has given us a $15 trillion debt.

So I hope as all of those families in America are settling in for the holidays that we would be doing the work in Washington that would assure a long-term future for these families, which means we are going to have to cut spending from the government, that we are not going to increase taxes on the working people of our country, and that we would have regulatory reform that would allow our small businesses to grow without the heavy hand of government putting a blanket on their ability to grow.

When there is a blanket on the ability to grow, they are not going to hire more people. That is the problem we have in this country right now. So we are making, in the next 2 days, I hope--I hope my colleagues will support the agreement we made in August to start the down payment on the spending in this country, lowering it, lowering it from what the President sent over, a budget from which we have cut almost $100 billion.

Even in the face of this crisis in this country on spending, the President sent us a budget that was almost $100 billion more than we are going to pass in the House and Senate because we made an agreement in August to cut spending. The House is also going to send disaster relief, which I will certainly support, and they are going to send a bill that would pay for it with a 1.83-percent across-the-board cut in discretionary base spending, excluding the Department of Defense, military construction, and veterans affairs. I think that is a responsible approach.

I think with the budget that we are putting forward with the appropriations, with a 1.83-percent across-the-board cut to fund disaster relief that we know is going to happen and be necessary in the next 9 months of next year, that we should pay for that. We should have disaster relief in our budgets in the future, and we should try to accommodate it right now.

We are not going to withhold it for people who are in need. We do not

know if it is going to be wildfires or droughts or hurricanes or tornados. We are not going to deny that help. But it should be budgeted just like everything we do. We should have some sense that we have prepared for it. Preparing for disasters should be part of our budget. There is not a business in this country that does not prepare for disasters. The government should do it too.

I hope we will be on a trajectory to lower the spending, keeping our agreement of August with the Omnibus appropriations bill that is going to be passed by the House this afternoon and will come to the Senate. I hope we will be able to act by tomorrow on that piece of legislation that keeps the agreements we made.

It is a down payment. It is not what all of us wanted, but I think we ought to put in disaster relief. I think we ought to pay for that with another 1.83-percent cut across the board. I think that would be the responsible approach, and then we can start next year on the long term. That would be regulatory reform, Social Security reform--to make it solvent for 75 years, at least--and Medicare reform. Those are the things that will give us a long-term, hopefully, solvent government that will be the model for the world because, is there any question that we need a model in the world right now for fiscal discipline and responsible governing? I hope America can provide it.

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