Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise as the ranking member of the Commerce-Justice Subcommittee, and I am very pleased that the bill we are presenting is a bill Chairman Mikulski and I worked on together. We came together in compromise, but we didn't compromise on the top level of spending, and I commend Chairman Mikulski for her leadership in this very important effort. We have a top line that is $491 million below the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution and $4.9 billion below the President's request. So we set a very strict top line, but within that I believe we worked a good compromise on the competing priorities of law enforcement, terrorism prevention, research, and competitiveness through investing in science.

I will just say that I relate so much to what the chairman said about the Webb telescope and the importance of that, and that the Nobel Prize winner whom we are so proud to have from America--in astronomy-- mentioned that was how he was able to do his research makes me so proud that we have made that kind of investment. You will see that in other areas where our finest scientists have been supported, and it is the kind of research that is not going to be done in the private sector. So this is how we will be able to create something that will provide jobs of the future. America is ahead in the world. Our economy is vibrant not because we manufacture better but because we have the ideas for the manufactured products that have kept our economy going for hundreds of years.

The chairman has gone over the major funding levels, so I won't go into that, but I do want to point out a few of those that I think are important.

First, in law enforcement, we have worked hard to ensure that law enforcement receives the priority funding needed to protect our Nation, our communities, our children, and victims of crime.

One thing I would like to add is that we have ensured that the FBI has the resources needed to continue the significant increase in their contribution to counterterrorism and working with the CIA and counterintelligence worldwide. This added responsibility commenced after 9/11, and Director Mueller has overseen this, really the largest transition in this agency probably in modern times from really traditional crime fighting to these added missions. I anticipate we will add even more in conference with the House, and I will support that. I think they have become a major contributor to our national security and the global security we are all seeking.

The language is included also to encourage the Department of Justice to maintain its fiscal year 2011 current level of funding focusing on the southwest border. It is $1.9 billion. This is so important as violence continues to spread across our border and the drug cartels become increasingly emboldened and, unfortunately, sophisticated. So this was something the chairman and I agreed we must keep at the level funding, and we have done so.

The El Paso Intelligence Center is another important program that is one of our first safeguards along the border. This is a national tactical intelligence center that supports law enforcement in the United States, in Mexico, and the whole Western Hemisphere. It is the Drug Enforcement Administration's most important intelligence-sharing entity focusing on all that is related to the border.

Another important program I will point out is the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. We call it SCAAP. SCAAP provides Federal assistance to States and localities that are incurring the costs of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens who have been accused or convicted of State and local offenses. This is a Federal responsibility, and county jails and the State prisons should not be holding these prisoners without help from the Federal Government because they are illegal aliens.

Lastly, this bill provides significant support for NASA. The diverse set of programs that are aimed at the exploration of space and understanding Earth are so important for our country's future. Senator Mikulski and I have crafted a bill that balances the needs of science while also encouraging the vehicles that will take our astronauts to the space station for research and making use of that very important scientific station.

Our part is part of a national lab, and it was designated as such, and then, in the future beyond, it will include the supporting of emerging commercial space companies to bring cargo and astronauts to the space station, supporting our investment, taking advantage of the opportunities for discovery on the space station, and ensuring that NASA will provide for human exploration beyond low Earth orbit.

So many of us watched the last shuttle return. Knowing we had no vehicle that would take Americans into space under American control for at least the foreseeable future was not well regarded in our country, and we need to make this commitment. We have made the commitment today with appropriations to ensure that we are going to continue our preeminence in space, that we are going to go through low Earth orbit and we are going to see what is beyond the Moon in an astroid or Mars, see if there is life there and what we can learn from life that might be enhanced on Earth. So it is important that now we have the heavy lift launch vehicle design NASA released last month. It will carry our astronauts in the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle to the Moon, the astroids, and beyond.

Now that this decision has finally been made, we can focus on the future, and I think Americans expect that from us. NASA has announced its commitment to the path Congress has authorized, and now we can provide the funds to accomplish the development of that rocket.

So in addition to what the chairman has already mentioned, I am certainly a supporter of America COMPETES. I would like to do much more in the science area, the hard science, because I think that is our future. It is how we create jobs and keep our economy vibrant, having the new products and the new ways to secure more jobs and more economic vitality in the technical sector in our country.

I am very pleased. I thank the Senator from Maryland and her staff so much for helping and working with us. They have been great partners. I could not ask for any better. I think we have done a job that was hard to do with the lower levels of spending that we all expect and accept, but I think we have been able to cover the priorities well.

I wish to end on a lighter note and say my friend, the Senator from Missouri, is sitting here. I want to point

out this will be the last time in the next 10 days that he and I are going to be on the same side because, of course, the mighty Texas Rangers are going to meet the St. Louis Cardinals in the World Series very shortly.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will yield briefly to the Senator from Montana, and I ask that we set an order. I thought I was scheduled to speak, but apparently it is up in the air. I will defer to the Senator from Montana and ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow him.

Mr. President, I also rise today to speak in favor of the pending free-trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.

More than 50 million Americans work for companies that engage in international trade. Currently, U.S. exporters operate at a distinct disadvantage in countries where U.S. goods face high tariffs or discriminatory regulations. Passage of these three free-trade agreements will erase those disadvantages and allow our American businesses to compete on a level playing field in the global marketplace.

For far too long, these trade agreements have sat on the President's desk. This delay has hurt our competitive advantage and cost American jobs. Moreover, the administration's slow walk of these bills has encouraged some of our major trading partners to go forward and quickly negotiate their own trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia, putting their workers at an advantage over U.S. workers.

Canada has already approved trade deals with both Colombia and Panama. The European Union has passed agreements with all three countries. Canadian and EU workers and farmers are reaping the advantages of greater access to these markets.

Creating jobs, increasing investment, and growing the U.S. manufacturing and farming sectors should be our top priority. With a 9.1-percent unemployment rate, this is a no-brainer: export more, make our products more competitive by lowering the tariffs, and create jobs in America. What could be more clear?

If we fail to act, American businesses will continue watching from the sidelines as other countries enjoy duty-free trading and continue to gain an advantage over American companies and employees.

It has been estimated that failure to implement just the Colombia and South Korea Free Trade Agreements would lead to a decline of $40.2 billion in U.S. exports. The net negative impact on U.S. employment from these trade and output losses could total nearly 400,000 jobs.

Small businesses in America will be the largest beneficiary of these free-trade agreements. These are the businesses that account for the largest group of U.S. exporters. Indeed, more than 97 percent of the U.S. companies that export are small businesses, and they account for one-third of the total U.S. merchandise exports.

Our farmers and ranchers will also benefit from these agreements as the exports of our agricultural products have historically suffered from high tariffs and other nontariff barriers.

South Korea. The South Korea Free Trade Agreement will be America's largest free-trade agreement in Asia. South Korea is our Nation's seventh largest trading partner and the United States is South Korea's third largest trading partner. The White House has estimated that when the free-trade agreement with South Korea is fully implemented, U.S. exports to South Korea will increase by $11 billion annually and add as many as 70,000 U.S. jobs.

The pending agreement will open the door for increased U.S. exports to South Korea of our automobile products, which are among the U.S. industries and workers that will benefit. It should also be noted that approval of this free-trade agreement will send a strong message that we stand with our

allies in Asia and will further strengthen our long and positive relationship with South Korea.

Right here in our own hemisphere, the implementation of the U.S.- Panama Free Trade Agreement will guarantee American companies access to Panama's $21 billion in services. This includes priority areas in financial, telecommunications, computer, distribution, express delivery, energy, environmental and professional services.

Once implemented, 88 percent of U.S. commercial and industrial exports to Panama will become duty free. The remaining tariffs would be phased out over a 10-year period. We need to act now in order to preserve current exports to Panama and pave the way for more. Panama has recently signed free-trade agreements with Canada and the European Union.

Nearly 5 years have passed since the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement was signed by the United States and Colombia on November 22, 2006. Last year, U.S. exports to Colombia totaled $12 billion, with many of those subject to the high tariffs. Our exporters have paid nearly $4 billion in duties to Colombia since that agreement was signed 5 years ago.

The Colombian Congress approved the free-trade agreement less than 1 year after it was signed. After 5 years, the Congress is only now finally considering this agreement. That is not the way to treat a friend.

With passage of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, 80 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial products to Colombia will be duty free immediately, with remaining tariffs phased out over 10 years. The U.S. International Trade Commission has estimated that this agreement will increase the U.S. gross domestic product by $2.5 billion.

On another front regarding Colombia, they once had one of the worst drug cartel problems in our hemisphere. With their determination and integrity and with our help, Colombia's Government and law enforcement systems have substantially cleaned out the Medillin and Cali drug cartels. To acknowledge their sacrifice this should have been the easiest of the free-trade agreements to quickly have confirmed.

We have waited 5 years, as Colombia has done so much for itself to clean up the cancer in their system. We should have done this 5 years ago. So I hope there is no hesitancy now and there is overwhelming support in this Senate for this free-trade agreement.

In conclusion, with so many American businesses and workers struggling during this prolonged economic slump, it should be the easiest thing we do to enact these three free-trade agreements. Exports support millions of jobs in this country. These agreements will promote American sales in markets where we have been at a disadvantage for too long.

It was disheartening that this administration let these agreements languish for many months without taking action. We now have the chance to approve those before us today--these three--which are good for our bilateral relations with these three countries, for working Americans, for farmers and ranchers throughout our system, and for our struggling economy.

I am very pleased these votes are being scheduled for today. We know the South Korean President is going to address a joint session of Congress tomorrow and to have these done and, hopefully, signed by the President when the South Korean President comes is the welcome gift he has been looking for, for a long time.

I so look forward to having these three free-trade agreements with these countries that have shown they want to do business with America, they want to have free and fair access into their country for our great products and our great workers, and we should let them have it without further delay.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, are we under a time limit to discuss the Cornyn amendment?

I want to speak on the Cornyn amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that I be listed as a cosponsor.

Madam President, the Cornyn amendment is important because the President of the United States has refused to allow the sale of 66 F-16C/D model aircraft to Taiwan. Taiwan is trying to modernize its air force, and it is not an issue of our not selling to Taiwan. They have bought the A/B models, so they have 145 F-16s in the earlier model, the A/B. They are trying to get the next generation of them.

This is a foreign policy issue, but also a domestic issue, because these are very important sales--the 66--for the F-16 line to be continued, and the hope is that this sale will go through. It is very important so that we can continue to make them for ourselves but also sell them to our allies. Most certainly, Taiwan is an ally and has used and likes the F-16. Taiwan has also used the French Mirage, but the French Mirage has a shortage of parts for Taiwan. They are trying to consolidate, with F-16s, American jobs and American fighters.

Now they are running into the roadblock of the administration. Within the next decade, Taiwan will retire 70 percent of its fighter force structure. Its F-5s have reached the end of their utility. The Mirage fighters lack parts and life cycle support, and their indigenous defense fighters are being converted to trainers. Taiwan's existing 145 F-16A/B fighters all require a midlife upgrade. With the F-16s already in the inventory, they are seeking to combine their whole fighter fleet with the single airframe, with the cost and operational benefits and the efficiencies that one fighter frame would give them.

We are concerned that further delay of the decision to sell the F-16s to Taiwan could in fact close the production line. That is why 45 members of the Senate have signed a letter to President Barack Obama, asking him to go forward with this sale of 66 F-16C/Ds to Taiwan.

The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 directs Congress and the President to make decisions on arms sales to Taiwan based solely on the judgment of the needs of Taiwan. We believe that the Taiwanese pilots flying Taiwanese fighter aircraft manufactured in the United States represent the best first line of defense for our democratic ally, and do not pose any threat to China. There is no offense here. The Taiwan air force just patrols the Taiwan Strait to assure its safety and security.

I rise in support of the amendment that has been offered. It is very important. Bipartisan support in Congress

for working with our ally, Taiwan, without any offense to China is important and we need to assure that it remains solid and firm.

I hope our colleagues will help us with the amendment that will assure this sale goes through, that we keep the commitments we have made, and that we have the ability to sell to Taiwan; otherwise, they will surely look for other countries to buy from.

That is not in our interest. Here we are trying to create jobs in America. It is certainly in our strategic interest to have our ally buy our product, so we can do the training and work with them and have a strengthening of not only our trade but our defense alliance. It just makes sense to go forward. It is not as if we don't sell to Taiwan. They have already bought 145 F-16s. They now want 66 more of the newer version.

It is time for us to do what is right for our country, for jobs in our country, for our national defense, and for the keeping of our commitments and ties with our ally, Taiwan. I urge support for the Cornyn amendment. Since so many Democrats have signed a letter to the President, I hope that will translate into votes for the amendment so it will be clear that the bipartisan support in the Senate for the F-16 sale to Taiwan is accomplished.

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

If I can clarify, I think the Senator from California is saying the highway bill will get 2\1/2\ minutes, and we will agree to split our time with the ranking members.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues not to support the Paul amendment on FAA. Although I understand what he is trying to do, to bring it down, this is a clean extension that has been passed by the House. The House has gone out for the weekend, and the FAA authorization lapses tomorrow. We have had a shutdown of the FAA in the last 6 weeks and it disrupts airport expansions, and it disrupts the FAA itself.

We will work with Senator Paul to make sure we are doing everything we can to cut the FAA budget, but this is a clean 2011 extension, with no additions, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill without the amendment.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the 65th wedding anniversary of Mr. and Mrs. Virgil Poe, the parents of my good friend serving the 2nd District of Texas, Congressman Ted Poe.

In the summer of 1945, following his service in Germany in the Second World War, TSgt Virgil Poe was stationed at the US Army Post in Fort Hood, TX, re-equipping and preparing for a possible land invasion of Japan. At the same time, Miss Dorrace Hill was serving the local Army hospital as a volunteer for the Red Cross. On a Wednesday night during that summer of 1945, Virgil met Dorrace at a prayer meeting church service. The next year, the couple was married on October 16, 1946.

Virgil and Dorrace began their wedded life operating a DX service station where Virgil pumped gas, sold tires, and fixed cars. Soon thereafter, they moved to Abilene, TX, where Virgil enrolled at Abilene Christian University. While there, he supported his family and paid his tuition by working nights for Southwestern Bell and KRBC Radio.

After college, the Poes moved to Houston, where Virgil and Dorrace

raised Ted and Jayne. Virgil worked for more than 40 years as an engineer at the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, and the Poes were active members of the Memorial Church of Christ.

Virgil and Dorrace's marriage is rooted in faith and love. The Poes are celebrating 65 years of marriage surrounded by their beloved family, including their son Ted and his wife Carol and their daughter Jayne, their 8 grandchildren, and 13 great-grandchildren. Mr. President, I am proud to honor the 65th wedding anniversary of Virgil and Dorrace Poe, and join with their family and friends in recognizing them on this special occasion.

Madam President, I wish to mark today, September 14 of 2011, as the day that NASA announced our vision for the future. Since the shuttle was retired earlier this year and we saw the last people go into space on an American flight, many of us have worried that there wasn't going to be another heavy launch vehicle that would take our astronauts to beyond low earth orbit. Today, after much study and a lot of going back and forth with NASA, I was encouraged to see the design approved by both NASA and the OMB, and I think it is going-- well, it will be the heaviest, biggest, strongest, most robust vehicle we have seen since we put men on the Moon.

I was very concerned because of the long timeframe. Congress asked that this design be delivered by January of this year. We kept getting delays and delays and delays. Finally, Senator Bill Nelson and I just got frustrated about that timeline, so we had meetings.

As recently as yesterday, I met with the director of OMB, Mr. Jack Lew, who did come to my office to meet with Senator Nelson and myself and General Bolden, who is the NASA Administrator, to get his commitment that we would be on a robust timeline and that it would be as much a priority of NASA to go beyond low earth orbit as the ferry to the space station would be for NASA. We got those assurances from Mr. Lew and the NASA Administrator. Senator Nelson and myself, Senator Rockefeller was represented, Senator Boozman--we had all the relevant people in the loop on this issue because we want to make sure Congress and the administration are on the same goal with a timeline to achieve that goal.

What worried us about the delays were the loss of cost efficiencies and the loss of experienced personnel to design that new heavy launch vehicle.

We want to have the most experienced engineers who will use the proven technology that has been time tested and add to that proven technology the added boosters, the added capabilities that we know we must have to go to Mars, to an asteroid, and to make sure we do it in a safe manner.

I am very encouraged by the commitments that were made and the timetables we are seeing. I am told by the NASA personnel that we are now going to look, in 1 week or 2, to have the contract modifications in place that will tell the workers that they are going to have those jobs, that we are going to have that expedience, that they have a project to work on. I think it is essential we have that kind of experienced personnel to do this.

I am very pleased we now have this way forward. It is the most powerful vehicle we will have seen in many years. I think the announcement today is going to set us on a path. If we can see those contract modifications going out from NASA in the next week--or a little more, but no more than 2 weeks from now--then we will know there is progress and that we are going toward the time when we will have the building of that rocket, that we will have the design, followed by the building, and then, of course, testing, and then the launch.

I think when we saw that last flight come down this summer, so many people had very mixed feelings because space exploration has been a part of America's drive and spirit for all these years we have watched more and more things be accomplished. From President Kennedy's first challenge that we would put men on the Moon, Americans have been excited about that opportunity. They have not just been excited, though, about the exploration and the pushing of the envelope, they have also been excited with the quality of life that has been produced by what came from the research: the advancements we have had in medical treatment, MRIs, the advancements in products we have been able to discover.

I fully expect that with the space station we are going to be able to do the research on cancers that will grow in the microgravity conditions in space that will not grow the same way on Earth, and that maybe we will be able to test antidotes and medicines for those. That is why I was pleased the President did announce we would extend the space station until 2020. We have international partners as well. So we want to make sure we are a good partner, that we are a reliable partner, and that we do some things for mankind that might make a difference in our lives.

National security. We have gained so much in satellite-guided missiles for our national security. And being able to put a missile into a window from 1 mile out is because we have been able to discover in space the use of satellites. Earlier this summer the space shuttle carried the magnetic spectrometer that Dr. Ting, the Nobel laureate from MIT, built and insisted on putting on the space station, it will help us understand the nature of dark energy and its relationship to the origins and function of the universe.

We are looking at how matter was formed. We are looking at the cosmic rays. I went to the Johnson Space Center in Houston and saw from the space station the magnetic spectrometer that was getting the hits from cosmic rays. There were 60 scientists in the room who were tracking these hits, trying to determine what was happening when those cosmic rays hit the magnetic spectrometer because they want to see if we can understand the nature of dark energy. There are things we have not even thought of that we hope to find by using the space station, and then going to an asteroid or going to the Moon.

We have taken a first step today. I think many people in America were waiting for the blueprint for the future. Now I think we have one. As long as we stay on a regular timetable and with the funding levels that have been approved already in the authorization bill passed by Congress and signed by the President--if we can stick with those, this has the potential to bring us energy, health, possibly curing breast

cancer, things that will make a difference in the lives not only of Americans but of our fellow citizens all over the world. That is what the investment can be in NASA if we go forward as we have made this blueprint to do.

We are in a time where we must be more efficient. We must fund the priorities and not fund the lesser priorities.

In today's markup of our committee, our Appropriations subcommittee that does fund NASA, we have found the priorities. We also cut programs. Senator Mikulski said in her whole time in the Senate she has never been an appropriator who actually cut programs. But we did today. We cut programs that were lesser priorities in different areas of our jurisdiction. But we funded NASA so we would have this heavy launch vehicle. We would fund the commercial vehicle that is going to take our astronauts to the space station. That is going to be done in the private sector. That was the balance we did in our authorization bill last year. Then we fund the Webb Space Telescope because that is part of the scientific advances we must make if we are going to know what is out there in space that we might be able to utilize or utilize the knowledge for better life on Earth.

I am very pleased we have the Appropriations Committee that will, hopefully, approve the bill tomorrow and that we have made those tough decisions. We came in under the 2011 continuing resolution on our overall bill. We came in under the President's request. But we have fully funded the priorities which have the possibility to reap the benefits from exploration and assure that America remains the No. 1 country in the world in space exploration. Our economy has benefitted, our national security has benefitted, and now we are going to be looking at health care possibilities, energy possibilities, and living in space, and seeing how we can do that in a better way.

I think we have a plan that will excite the American people again about what we can do in space if we put our minds to it, if we prioritize, if we are efficient with the taxpayer dollars, and we do not lose sight of the vision that is the spirit of America.

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

Mr. President, I rise in morning business to talk about a situation in Texas, the wildfires and the drought.

Since we were mostly home during the August recess, I saw the floods in the Midwest and on the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. I saw the hurricane that hit New York and all along the East Coast. At the same time, with all the extra water in the East, we have had as much as 60 days in parts of Texas with no rain whatsoever. The drought is killing livestock. It is killing land. It is a sad situation. What has happened, of course, is, from that, the wildfires have been able to go farther than we have ever seen in Texas before.

Just in the past 7 days, the Texas Forest Service has responded to 176 fires, destroying nearly 130,000 acres. This year alone, over 2,000 fires have burned more than 2 million acres in Texas. We have high winds and drought conditions, which are a terrible combination in this instance.

Yesterday, the Texas Forest Service responded to 20 new fires, which consumed nearly 1,500 more acres. One of the hardest hit areas is Bastrop County, which is near Austin. I was talking to some of my constituents in Houston, which is not near Austin, and they were talking about seeing and smelling the smoke in Houston from these fires in Bastrop.

An assessment has been completed as of now that says 785 homes were completely destroyed, 238 homes have been reported lost as a result of other fires over the past 3 days, and the fires are so big that they are being photographed from space.

Senator Cornyn and I have asked the President to add the recent wildfires from just this last week to his previous disaster declaration from this spring, which did include wildfires. I want the people of Texas to know that Senator Cornyn and I are working together to get all the Federal help they need. I have been in contact with the State representatives from the area, the mayors, and the county judges to get the reports. So far they feel they have gotten the help they have needed. But now, in the aftermath, we will need to be part of any kind of disaster bill that goes through this Senate or is declared by the President.

It is my hope we can work through that next week and make sure we include these most recent fires along with the flood disaster relief that supposedly will come to the floor next week. So we are going to work on it and try to help these people. We can't replace the graduation pictures and the wedding pictures and the children's pictures that are lost. This is the human loss you see in this type of a situation. But we can certainly help these people rebuild, and that is what we want to do.

We are going to be on the job trying to help in every way we can, knowing there will not be a 100-percent replacement because the photographs and the personal items and grandmother's wedding ring may not be recovered, but we are going to do what we can, as Americans always do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have not wanted to pursue this issue, because the debt ceiling issue has absorbed all of the air in the room and in the United States, as it should; it is a huge priority. But I have to set the record straight a little bit about how this came about.

First, I agree with the House position. I would reverse the NMB decision because I think it is wrong. However, what happened here is that, after 20 extensions of the FAA bill because of disagreements on several issues, the House decided to put this one--well, actually, to be honest, the House didn't even bring up NMB; they put another issue on the extension language, and it is the Essential Air Service language, which we have been trying to negotiate but have not yet come to a full agreement on among all of the parties. It is really the NMB issue that is causing the House to shut down the FAA. So the entire FAA--not the air traffic controllers, thank goodness but 3,492 employees of the FAA have been shut down, and this affects 35 States. They are on furlough without pay, through no fault of their own.

And interestingly, airports that were in the midst of building runways or adding to their infrastructure or repairing their infrastructure also have had work stoppages because of the House action. The Associated General Contractors of America has estimated that 70,000 construction and related jobs are at risk because the House put an Essential Air Service amendment on a clean extension of the FAA.

Mr. President, I want the House position to prevail. But we are getting ready, in the next day or so, to leave probably for the month of August and then come back after Labor Day. We should not shut down the FAA because of a rider put on the extension of the FAA legislation that has not been negotiated.

In fact, Mr. President, the House has not even appointed conferees. The chairman of the House committee has not called a meeting of the chairman of the Senate, plus the two ranking members. There has been no full negotiation with the principals. Yet the House put this extraneous amendment on the bill, and the FAA is shut down and the lives of 70,000 people are at risk.

We got a letter from Boeing because they are trying to get their new Boeing 747-8 certification, but the workers are not there to do it. So in addition to the work stoppages--and the FAA has now issued a total of 219 stop-work orders across the country--we also are seeing the certification of a great new airplane also on hold. That may start disrupting the capability for the airlines that have purchased these planes to be able to start flying the airplanes and upgrading their services.

This just does not make sense. We are going to lose $1 billion in the aviation trust fund if we leave this Congress for the month of August and we don't extend the FAA--$1 billion of revenue paid by passengers in a ticket tax. They are paying it, but it is just not going to the aviation trust fund. It is going to the airlines in the form of a higher ticket price. It should be going to the aviation trust fund because that is what we use to build the runways and to make the repairs and to keep our airports operating. So we are going to lose $1 billion in revenue.

Here we are, on the brink of cutting spending and raising the debt ceiling and trying to put our fiscal house in order. Yet we are going to let $1 billion be lost that rightfully should go to the aviation trust fund. The users are going to pay for it anyway, and that money is going to have to be made up. How is it going to be made up? It is going to have to come from general revenue because contracts have already been let. That money is going to have to be spent.

I cannot think of anything more fiscally irresponsible than to tax the users, not put it in the aviation trust fund and have to replace that money at some point.

I am a fiscal conservative, and I am trying to make the cuts that are necessary, trying to do the things that are right. But I have to question those who are saying we are going to not be for essential air service--which has a total budget of about $200 million--but we are going to waste $1 billion to not let a bill go through that keeps the aviation trust fund and the FAA going. That just doesn't add up.

If we are going to be sincere about the wise use of our taxpayer dollars, I don't think it is right taking money from people who are traveling on the airlines and who are thinking that money is a ticket tax to pay for airport infrastructure when, in fact, it is going into the airlines' pockets, and then having the taxpayer make up that money because these contracts have already been let. Is that fiscal responsibility?

Here we are on the eve of trying to show fiscal responsibility and do the right thing for our country. I don't think so, Mr. President. It doesn't pass the smell test.

I hope my colleagues, before we leave--and the House of Representatives and the people who are supporting them in the Senate-- will relent and let the FAA keep operating. Let's come back in the month of September and negotiate an FAA bill as we normally do in this Congress. If we can't come to an agreement, then, on the NMB--and I am certainly going to support changing the decision that was made--maybe we can talk harshly and throw down the gauntlet, but not without any notice, adding it to this FAA extension without ever negotiating on it. That is not the way we ought to operate. It is enough to make the people of our country think: You know what. We expect better. We expect better, and I expect better.

I cannot believe my colleagues would let the FAA shut down and jeopardize 70,000 jobs and take money from airline travelers--when on their ticket it says ticket tax for aviation trust fund--and defraud them because that tax is not going to the aviation trust fund. Is that going to make the people of our country believe Congress is doing the right thing? It doesn't pass the smell test.

It is time for the airlines of this country to stand up and say: We need a clean extension of the FAA, and we need for the House and Senate to meet, as we normally do, in a conference and take up the issues. As I said, I am going to support the reversal of the NMB decision, and I am going to support a reform of essential air service in the context of negotiating perimeter rule and other issues that are in contention, which is the honorable way to

proceed. But I don't feel very good right now about what the Senate is doing in supporting the House in an irresponsible position that is defrauding the airline passengers of this country right now because they are collecting a ticket tax that is not going to the aviation trust fund.

It is wrong, Mr. President. I hope in the next few hours our colleagues will come to their senses, do the right thing, pass a clean extension, and send it to the House, where I hope they, too, will act so that we can have a conference committee and work out the issues with honor and integrity.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah, and I appreciate his passion for the issue. I agree with him on the issue.

The way for us to get together and resolve it is to have a conference committee, to have the conferees appointed on the House side. The conferees are appointed on the Senate side already, and we are ready to negotiate this bill. And I am going to be for the same position as the Senator from Utah because I don't think NMB made the right decision. I think it is a terrible overstretch, overreach of that board to change the law or change the regulation about what is a union election. I think they are wrong.

But we cannot solve the issue with the House sending an extension of the FAA with a rider that is completely separate from that issue. NMB is not in the rider, it is not in the rider at all, but that is the issue everybody is negotiating unilaterally here. The House has sent over a bill that has an essential air service amendment that also has not been negotiated, but what they are negotiating on is the National Mediation Board. Well, if that is confusing, there is a reason--because it is confusing.

So why don't we unconfuse and have a conference committee the way we normally do here, and let's hash out these issues. If we would have a chance to actually have a conference, negotiate all the issues, and then if someone is not satisfied, there are procedures that are honorable to blow up a bill that you don't like, but it is not honorable for the House to send an extraneous amendment on an FAA extension and shut down airports that are being repaired and built in our country, jeopardizing an estimated 75,000 jobs, jeopardizing the certification of a major new airplane that wants to get out there and start being used and an aviation trust fund that will lose over $1 billion because we are not collecting the tax, and the airlines are pocketing

the money by having a higher ticket charge, mostly. They may not all be doing that, but most of them are. That is just not right, and we are going to have to make that up because there are contracts pending that are going to have to be paid for.

It is not fiscally responsible, and it is not honorable, and it is time for us to pass a clean extension of the FAA. Let's negotiate until September 30, and then, if we can't agree, we won't sign a conference report and it won't come back. I will stand there and not sign a conference report, but it is kind of hard to do that if you are not doing the right thing by sitting down and talking.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Madam President.

I rise to speak about the August 2 debt ceiling deadline and the proposal that will be before us very soon, developed by Majority Leader Reid.

Here we are again debating legislation that demonstrates our fundamental differences in how we should run our government. I wish to quote from a recent article by Charles Krauthammer that appeared in the National Review. I think it says something I have been saying several times in the last week, which is that this is more than a debt ceiling debate; it is a debate about our views of government that are so different between the parties in our country. Here is what Charles Krauthammer said:

We're in the midst of a great four-year national debate on

the size and reach of government, the future of the welfare

state, indeed, the nature of the social contract between

citizen and state. The distinctive visions of the two

parties--social-Democratic versus limited-government--have

underlain every debate on every issue since Barack Obama's

inauguration: the stimulus, the auto bailouts, health-care

reform, financial regulation, deficit spending. Everything.

The debt ceiling is but the latest focus of this fundamental

divide.

The sausage-making may be unsightly--

No argument there--

but the problem is not that Washington is broken--

As he describes it--

that ridiculous, ubiquitous cliche. The problem is that these

two visions are in competition, and the definitive popular

verdict has not yet been rendered.

He goes on to say:

We're only at the midpoint. Obama won a great victory in

2008 that he took as a mandate to transform America toward

European-style social democracy. The subsequent

counterrevolution delivered to that project a staggering

rebuke in November of 2010.

I think that puts a perspective on the debates we have been having during the last 2 years and the debate we are seeing now in the last few weeks.

I do know that none of us wants our country to go into default. Both sides can agree on that. All of us are troubled with the delay in resolving this issue. Uncertainty is not good for our economy, but a bad agreement is worse because it will have lasting impacts. It is my opinion it will also affect our debtors with a message that we are not serious about a $14 trillion debt and we are not going to do anything that would try to bring it down or bring

down the deficits or change the entitlement programs that are a major part--more than half--of our budget.

I support Speaker Boehner's bill, and I support the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. Both of these plans, in my opinion, contain the right approach to our budget challenges. I believe the Reid plan is the wrong approach. The Reid plan contains what they say is a $2.4 trillion debt limit increase which, if enacted, would result in the single largest increase in the debt ceiling in the history of America.

In addition to this unprecedented increase, the Reid plan fails to address our current fiscal imbalance. It doesn't do anything to address the fundamental problems. It lacks any adequate enforcement, and it doesn't ensure that long-term spending cuts are carried out. There is no guarantee at all. So we raise the debt limit and we don't have anything but a promise, and that is not good enough. It is not good enough for the elected leaders of our country, and it is certainly not good enough for the American public.

The debt ceiling increase in the Reid plan is not paid for. Many of the cuts outlined in his plan are illusory or hopeful. Hope is not a strategy. We can hope to do away with waste, fraud, and abuse, but we can't promise right now because we don't have it before us. If we had a bill that cuts certain amounts from certain agencies because of waste, fraud, and abuse, that would be a commitment we could uphold. But what we have is a promise that we will look at it. How many times have we looked at waste, fraud, and abuse in our government programs? Yes, we ought to do it, but we should not make it the basis of lifting a debt ceiling that is crushing the economy in our country.

To label $1 trillion of cuts as savings from leaving Afghanistan and Iraq, which Senator Reid's proposal does, is not credible. For one thing, we don't know what the future obstacles in Afghanistan and Iraq are. We have to retain a certain level of stability on the ground in Afghanistan. I have met with Afghan leaders and women just in the last couple weeks, and they also agree that if America leaves precipitously without knowing what the stability on the ground is--and we certainly haven't seen stability lately with the assassinations of mayors and leaders, including the half brother of the leader of Afghanistan--that is not stability. It doesn't say they are ready yet. So having $1 trillion of cuts could undermine our national security. I hope we can leave with the right circumstances on the ground, but that is the only criteria we should use and not cutting a budget that we know is a promise and not a commitment we are assured we can keep.

Most disturbing of all in the Reid plan: The only possible justification for a $2.4 trillion increase in borrowing authority is to avoid doing this again before the 2012 election. That is not a reason to make public policy. Yes, none of us would want to go through this again in the next year. It has been painful--painful for all sides--but just saying: We are going to do it with promises and hope for the future is certainly not a way to address a major policy issue, and it is not going to have the credibility with the American people.

I believe it would be irresponsible to give the President this unprecedented additional borrowing authority without requiring the enactment of significant spending reductions and reforms. To do so would send a worse signal to the markets across the world that are shaky right now, looking at this debate. But they are also looking at what the result is going to be and who is going to win the battle about how we run our government. Can we imagine a $16 trillion debt ceiling with no commitment to actually make the cuts that would start getting us on the right path? That is not enough. That is why we are here at a quarter of 9 on Saturday night debating this issue, because we are not going to give up on our principles of making sure the fiscal responsibility of our country will be worthy of a AAA rating, will be worthy of the assuredness that if you buy a bond or a Treasury note or invest in the United States of America, that it is a golden commitment, that you can count on it, that you can take it to the bank. That is what we are fighting for right now.

I hope so much we can come to an agreement because we all agree that defaulting on our debt would not be a good signal to the markets, but raising the debt ceiling without the assured cuts, without caps on future years' spending is unconscionable.

I hope going forward we would have a balanced budget amendment that would go to the States because most States have a balanced budget amendment in their constitutions and they have mostly sound fiscal policies. If we had to live with those same constraints, I believe we would not get into this kind of a situation again. Eventually, I hope we will have a balanced budget amendment that we could get a two-thirds vote for and send to the States and see if that isn't a worthy amendment to our great Constitution. But in the meantime, cut and cap is what we can do, and I hope we will.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the looming August 2 deadline for raising the debt ceiling and making reforms, or budget cuts at least, that would allow us to show we are not going to have business as usual in Washington but that we are going to raise the debt ceiling with the necessary reforms.

Despite the differences in this body, we are all here to share three concerns:

First, we do know at this point, because of the time it has taken us to cobble together something that could be put through both of our Houses and signed by the President, that we have fundamental differences in the principles of how we should run our government. I think it is very clear that Republicans have stood for no taxes, especially in this economic environment. We believe piling taxes on top of the cost of the Obama health care system that is in the process of being implemented would keep our businesses from hiring people and getting this 9.2-percent unemployment rate down. I think we all agree we need to bring that unemployment rate down, but we have fundamental differences about what is causing it and how we can solve it.

No. 2, we all agree, I believe, or 95 percent of us agree, that we cannot default on the debt in our country. I do believe in both Houses the vast majority believe we should not go into default. The costs of a default are not being considered nearly enough. The costs of a default, of interest rates going up, of having to give backpay, having to correct some of the many issues we will face by having some of the people who are owed money but not paid, and having to pay interest and extra interest if we are in default. We cannot allow that to happen. I think we all agree on that.

We are all troubled with the delay in resolving this issue. The delay I think has been caused for many reasons. Of course, our fundamental differences are one. But I believe that although Members of Congress and leaders in Congress have been talking for a long time, the President has never put forward a real plan.

The Senate majority leader and the House Speaker have put forward plans. I believe there is a common ground that can be found between these two proposals. But they are not the same. In fact, I think the Republican leader in the Senate has also put forward a plan, and I think we are seeing the different pieces of the plans that have been put forward now starting to come together.

I believe the Boehner plan is a good one. I believed in the cut, cap, and balance legislation, where you cut spending now to make your downpayment, you cap spending every year for the next 10 years at a level that brings down the overall deficit, and you send a balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification. I feel so certain if we could pass a balanced budget amendment from this Congress and send it to the States, it would be ratified and it would put us on the real course for fiscal responsibility, the course that would assure that Social Security is sound, that Medicare works, and that our children and grandchildren will not inherit a debilitating debt that hurts our economy. So I do believe that cut, cap, and balance legislation was the right way forward. But Congress is split. We have a majority of Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in the House. Therefore, we are not going to get everything that any one of us believes is right. Certainly we are not going to get the Boehner plan in the Senate. But it is the right approach, and we will have to take a few steps at a time and I hope we will be able to come to terms on a way forward with the principles of cutting spending, putting a cap on spending, and not raising the debt ceiling any more than the cuts that can be counted.

That is what concerns me about the Reid plan. Senator Reid is calling for $2.7 trillion in an increase in the debt ceiling. The purpose, as the President has stated, is to get through the next election in 2012 and not deal with this again. But the next election should not be the focus. The focus should be, how do we show that our country is on the right track to get this enormous debt whittled down by whittling down the deficits and having sound budget principles.

This $2.7 trillion would be the largest debt ceiling increase in the history of America. The previous largest debt limit increase was $1.9 trillion, which President Obama signed into law in February of last year.

This debt ceiling increase in Senator Reid's proposal is not paid for. It offers $1 trillion in cuts for a $2.7 trillion increase. Many of those cuts are illusory. They are not cuts that can be counted. To say we are going to label $1 trillion of cuts savings from leaving Afghanistan and Iraq is not credible. We don't know what the obstacles are going to be in Afghanistan and possibly Iraq. We also don't know what we might have to do in the Middle East going forward. Afghanistan is not settled. We have to have a certain level of stability on the ground in Afghanistan or we will have wasted the billions we have already spent and the lives of our military personnel in Afghanistan because it will go back to the way it was before, a center for terrorism that will or can come to our country. It did once already. We have been over there to try to wipe out al-Qaida and the Taliban. We have been over there losing American lives and spending American taxpayer dollars to protect our country from another 9/11. To say we are going to cut $1 trillion in the future over the next 10 years when we aren't placing the emphasis on what are the conditions on the ground is not sound policy, and it is certainly not sound national security policy. So that is illusory.

Then the other parts of the cuts that I think are very hard to decipher are cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, which we all want to do, but we don't have the guarantee of those cuts.

I think it is important for us to look at the cuts and try to make sure that if we are going to raise the debt ceiling, we raise it only the amount of the actual cuts that we can produce.

In Majority Leader Reid's legislation there is a joint committee. There is also one in the Boehner bill. In the majority leader's legislation the committee has to report, but its product doesn't have to be passed and enacted before the debt ceiling is lifted. That is the real problem in Senator Reid's proposal. The bill would lose its expedited status, and the joint committee would dissolve on January 13, 2012 under Senator Reid's proposal and then we would still have the lifting of the debt ceiling that has already been enacted. That is not the way to go forward.

The joint committee proposed in the Boehner plan is forced to produce savings, and the forcing mechanism in this

case is the fact that the debt limit can't be increased unless the cuts are enacted. So you will keep the governor on the debt increase by assuring that there have to be cuts in spending dollar for dollar.

Third, there is no balanced budget amendment included in the Reid proposal and, in fact, there is no requirement that we even vote on a balanced budget amendment.

I know that it would be very difficult to pass a balanced budget amendment right now out of Congress, but I do believe it is the best thing we could do for the long-term security of our country. So I would hope as we come together--because we know the reality here. The Reid bill is not going to pass the House and the Boehner bill is probably not going to pass the Senate. So we have got to come together with a plan. Maybe it is a short-term plan that has a dollar-for-dollar cut along with the raising of the debt ceiling or maybe we can get more after we dispatch the two bills that are now before the Congress, and try to put something together that has the best parts of both.

I could not support the Reid plan as it is today and I do support the Boehner plan, but I also know that neither of them is going to pass the other House. So I think it is incumbent on us to now go forward and let's quickly start doing the work that could produce results, and that is to try to get the best of both of these before the August 2 deadline. I think we have got to be open to what can work that stays within the principles of no tax increases and no debt ceiling increase without the same amount of dollars at least to be cut from spending, with real cuts that can be assured. I think the American public is looking not for promises but for the assurance in the law that we will not be able to raise the debt ceiling without some cutting of spending and reforms that would equal the amount the debt ceiling has increased. We can go forward with those principles which I think both sides would agree to at this final few days we have before that debt ceiling is reached. It is time to vote on these bills and then get down to the real work of determining what is the best in both that we can pass in both Houses.

Thank you.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the looming August 2 deadline. This is when the Department of the Treasury estimates the Federal Government will officially hit the $14.2 trillion debt ceiling. We all know we are at the point where we are because we have a fundamental difference in principle on how our government should be run. At the same time, most agree that our country cannot go into default, so we are in a very tough situation with a very short time period.

That is why I am concerned about the delay on this issue. Delay means harm--harm to Americans and harm to our economic recovery, especially as we grapple with a 9.2-percent unemployment rate, which is the elephant in the room. We must address jobs if we are going to have an economy that is thriving and in a recovery period. A jobless recovery is not a recovery.

The administration's reluctance to resolve this crisis has brought the very real potential of a downgrade in our country's triple A bond rating. As we get closer to next Tuesday, Standard & Poor's and Moody's and other rating agencies await the details of the final debt agreement. Then they will determine if our Nation's triple A credit rating will be downgraded. The implications of the rating could affect consumers at a very bad time. It could include a rise in interest rates on home loans, on small business loans, on student loans, and credit cards.

Yesterday the stock market fell nearly 200 points, a 1.6-percent drop. That was the third straight day of stock market decline. It leaves the Dow Jones Industrial Average down 3.3 percent and nearly on track for its worst week since August of 2010.

The threat of a downgrade is also hurting our dollar. The dollar's value fell and hit a new 2011 low against the Japanese yen and a record low against the Swiss franc.

Two things are clear. First, uncertainty and anxiety are prevalent, domestically and in the global markets. Second, this anxiety underscores the need to address our debt ceiling and deficit reduction simultaneously. While the fundamental principles on which we base our solutions to this crisis are vastly different, I do believe that both sides of the aisle in Congress and both Houses of Congress share the same goal.

The Senate majority leader and the House Speaker have put forward plans. I believe we must find a common ground between the House and the Senate with the proposals that have been put out by the Group of 6, by the majority leader, by the minority leader on our side as well as the Speaker on the House side. There have been a lot of proposals and there have been good parts in several of these proposals where we need to come together and find the best parts that we can agree on, knowing we are a divided Congress and a divided government, and move forward to a conclusion.

We can get meaningful immediate spending cuts as well as caps on future spending. That would be a very important achievement. It would be a major step forward because that is not where we were when we started. Spending cuts and caps on future spending would be a major step in the right direction. We can allow the debt limit to increase in proportion to the cuts, the real cuts. We can do this without tax hikes, because the fact is, the idea that we can tax our way out of debt has been completely repudiated. So we can cut spending, we can cap future spending, we can raise the debt limit in accordance with those caps, and without any new taxes.

That is a significant achievement as well because certainly the President was talking about increasing taxes, increasing taxes, increasing taxes when this whole negotiation began. We on our side have stood firm against new taxes, knowing this is a very fragile economic time in our country. If we want people to be hired, if we want the unemployment rate to come down, we cannot saddle our small businesses with new taxes.

We can send a clear message to the markets and to our debtors that we can stop spending too much so we will not need to tax any more, and we certainly do not want to borrow as much and have the drag we see on our economy. Americans know that in Washington we are spending too much, we are taxing plenty, and we are borrowing too much.

There is more we can do. We will not get to a balanced budget without looking at entitlements because the discretionary spending is such a small part of our total budget. Our entitlement programs are the major part of the need for reform. Our entitlement programs are nearly bankrupt. If left unchanged, our promises to current and future beneficiaries will be broken.

Mandatory spending is the long-term driver of our debt problems. The Federal Government spends approximately $2.1 trillion a year on entitlement programs, about two-thirds of our total Federal budget. I have introduced a bill, the Defend and Save Social Security Act, that would put that very important program on a fiscally sound path without cutting core benefits or raising taxes. My proposal will cover the 75- year shortfall, and anyone who is currently 58 years old and above will have no effect whatsoever with the gradual increase in retirement age. The beginning of the increase in retirement age would start with people who are under 58, and then it would be only 3 months a year. So if you are 57 you would only retire 3 months later. If you are 56 it would be 6 months later to start on Social Security.

The Senate majority leader and the House Speaker have offered proposals that call for a bipartisan, bicameral congressional committee to fix the fiscal imbalance in our Nation's finances. It is imperative that this joint committee--if it is passed by both Houses of Congress-- confront entitlement reform. Entitlement reform is at the core of any long-term solution to our Nation's financial problems. If we act now, we can make progress in a very gradual way, and if we wait, it is going to be much more stark and much more problematic for people who depend on Social Security or Medicare. The opportunity to raise our debt ceiling is a defining moment in the future of our government. Let us confront the problem today and not delay the inevitable.

The more we delay, the harder it is going to be, and we have seen how hard it is already. We know this has not been an easy process because the talks between the White House and Members of Congress have fallen apart. The talks between Members of Congress on both sides of the Rotunda have fallen apart. We know this has been hard, so let's try to act now to stop it from being harder in the future, which it will be if we don't address our entitlement reforms.

I support a two-step approach. Let's take the first major step--a downpayment of almost $1 trillion. That is the first step for all of us--to cut spending by nearly $1 trillion. The second step is long-term deficit reduction that will cut more spending over a 10-year period and address entitlement reform. This can be done in a gradual way but without touching the core benefits, but we have to act now. If we don't, it will not be able to be done.

The financial viability of our country is at stake. The time is here--it is past here--to take the necessary steps to get our fiscal house in order, and I implore my colleagues to take those steps now.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am here to talk about the renomination of FBI Director Mueller, but I certainly heard my colleague from Maryland, and I agree we must pass a clean extension of the FAA. We are losing the revenue, and we are losing the capability for projects that are ongoing to continue. Work has stopped at many of the airports that have building and repair projects that are supported by the FAA.

Honestly, the House needs to send a clean extension. There is a clean extension pending in the Senate. It has been objected to by one Member. This is not the way to go forward. I happen to agree with much of what the House wants to do, but not in this way. We have to put that in the context of the whole bill, which we certainly should be doing, and I hope the House will send us a clean extension so there will not be another weekend of disruption and people can get on with the projects.

I come to the floor today to speak about FBI Director Robert Mueller. He has been FBI Director since 2001. During a critical time when our country has experienced such major leadership changes on our national security team, this nomination offers the necessary stability and continuity from a proven leader who has wide support.

Director Mueller has strong bipartisan support. He was appointed on August 2, 2001--just before the 9/11 tragedy--by President Bush, and he began serving a week before the September 11 attacks. His term is said to expire next week on August 2.

The FBI has never experienced a larger transformation than while under his leadership, adding counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and cyber security to the Bureau's traditional crime-fighting mission. In the 10 years Mr. Mueller has been Director of the FBI, he has worked tirelessly to ensure that no international terrorist attacks have occurred on U.S. soil since 9/11, and there have been several plots that have been uncovered and kept from occurring.

Director Mueller has ensured that the FBI is a full member of the U.S. intelligence community and serves as a critical and singular link between the intelligence and law enforcement communities in the United States. He served our Nation with valor and integrity as a marine in Vietnam and as a Federal prosecutor. He answered the call to service from President Bush to be FBI Director and is once again answering the call by agreeing to serve 2 more years under President Obama. He is an admirable public servant, and I urge his swift confirmation.

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

Madam President, I rise today to speak about the Military Pay Act of 2011. We were on the brink of closing down government earlier this year, this spring, and we came to a responsible conclusion and continued our government. We were also able to continue the tax cuts that have helped spur our economy as best they could in light of the spending and the debt that has been accumulated. Now we are looking at yet another potential government shutdown. It is so important that we make priorities.

We know what is happening right now in Washington. Everyone is focused on whether there is going to be an agreement to lift the debt ceiling because if there is not, then we have the potential for default, depending on the decision of what gets paid first. We do have revenue coming in that can be spent even if the debt ceiling is not lifted. However, the President can choose the priorities. What I am asking we do today is set some of those priorities. What I am asking is we take our military personnel out of any limbo. Let's go back to what we did earlier this year when we were in the continuing resolution debate which also had the potential for shutting down government. When that happened in April, I joined with my colleague on the House side, Representative Louie Gohmert. We both introduced a bill, the Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act, Senate bill 724. We have 80 cosponsors of that legislation. We have 80 out of 100 in the Senate who stepped up to the plate and said: Yes, we need to take care of our military even if government shuts down. That was April. Since then, I have introduced a new bill. The new bill is Senate bill 1365, the Protecting Military Pay Act of 2011. That one sets two priorities. It sets paying our debt, the interest on our debt and our military. Those are the two priorities. Social Security is in a different account, and it will automatically be paid from that account. I actually am cosponsoring another bill that is also cosponsored by many Senators and many House Members that would require the President pay our debt, interest on our debt, our active- duty military and also Social Security recipients even though that would automatically happen. The legislation I introduced in April that would take care of our active-duty military is supported by the Military Officers Association of America; the AMVETS, the American Veterans; and the National Military Family Association. The new bill I have introduced that has the debt to be paid off along with our military sets the priorities, and here is what it does: It says if we have any kind of government shutdown or we have a situation where we do not lift the debt ceiling and, therefore, we have to prioritize our spending according to the revenue that is coming in, there are two things that will be done: We want to pass the law so there can be no discretion that you will pay the debts and you will pay the military. You will pay the active-duty military. That is what the bill does simply and clearly.

Here is the situation: If the debt ceiling is reached, $29 billion would be set aside for August to the payment of our debts, $2.9 billion would be added to that for active-duty military pay. So you are allocating out of the billions that would be coming in in August, you would allocate those as the first two priorities and Social Security would be paid out of the Social Security fund. I am going to ask our majority leader to let these bills come up--at least one of them that says we will pay the debt, we will pay our military, and we know that Social Security will be paid.

It is tremendously damaging for our military to be getting the news in Afghanistan and Iraq of all the upheaval in Washington because they are getting the news, of course. For them to worry: Oh, my gosh, what happens August 2 if my paycheck isn't there for my wife or my husband to be able to use that to pay the mortgage or the basic expenses? I want to put it in perspective. We have people in the military with boots on the ground by the thousands who are making under $20,000 a year. Those are people who are living paycheck to paycheck. They don't have the luxury of having a big savings account with that kind of income, especially if they have children. My goodness, they are making under $18,000 a year, some of these younger junior members of the enlisted corps, so I don't think we ought to make them worry for 10 seconds if they can pay their basic bills for their housing and the food for their families.

In my State of Texas there are 28,000 brave men and women deployed in the support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are more than 97,000 servicemembers deployed who are married and have children waiting for them at home. There are 145,000 troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan who are working long hours every day in the desert heat to protect our freedom, to make sure we are doing everything we can to root out the terrorists who

have attacked America. These men and women all raised their right hand and volunteered to go to defend this Nation. The very least we can do while we are in this kind of budget negotiation, which is making a lot of people nervous--I have faith that we are going to do the right thing in the end, but it is not clear yet and we are a week away. I don't think we ought to make these people think about whether it is going to happen and if there is going to be a delay in a paycheck.

I hope we will be able to bring this bill up. I can guarantee if the majority leader will bring up my bill, it will pass. It has 80 cosponsors. The new bill is the same thing except it makes the debt payment the priority, which you would hope would not have to be done, but nevertheless let's assure that our debtors know we are going to pay the interest on the debt, and our military--who are in harm's way right now--will not worry about their family having the paycheck they need.

We have about a week. All of us had hoped it wouldn't take this long, but we have our different views, there is no question about it. I am one who believes we should raise the debt ceiling only with reforms that will assure the markets not just for the next week or the next 6 months, but for the long term, that not only are we going to pay our debts but we are going to bring down the cost of government so we will not have to raise the debt limit again.

We must take the reform actions we can take right now. We can fix Social Security for 75 years with relatively little cuts in increases with Social Security COLAs and with a trajectory that will put us on an actuarial table for an age that has certainly changed since Social Security passed. Very little change. It wouldn't affect anyone who is in the upper area of going into Social Security. The bill I have introduced wouldn't affect anyone age 58 and above or 55 and above. We can do the big things that will show our debtors and the rest of the world we can live within our means and our democracy can work to do the things that will make us good not for the next week, not for the next 6 months, but for our children and grandchildren. That is what we ought to be doing right now, and I have faith. We are going to have to do something temporary for the next few months while we work out the details, but I know if we get together, we can do this. I don't want our military to have to worry about it for 1 week or 3 months or 6 months because they deserve better.

Thank you, Madam President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the plan that

is before us, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. I also think there are some very important achievements in the Group of 6 proposal. It is a proposal. It is not legislative language. It has many things in it that are very good. It has tax cuts, it has entitlement reform, it has spending cuts. It is a complicated outline and one that needs to be fleshed out to know exactly what is in it, and it has some areas with which I disagree. I certainly want to assure that we keep the 15- percent capital gains and dividends rate. But we also have another proposal that I think has great merit.

I think the bill that has come over from the House, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, puts even more together on the issues that we are all trying to address. What we need are spending cuts that are real, not proposed down the road or promised. That is what the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act will do.

We all know we have a $14.3 trillion debt ceiling that is getting ready to be hit sometime in the month of August. What we need to do--in this Senate, in the Congress, and, certainly, hopefully, the President--is give confidence to the markets. That means we do two things: We raise the debt ceiling. We don't default or even scare people that we are going to default, with reforms that will assure that we will not ever have to do it again. That is what we must do to send a message to the markets that we are going to get our fiscal house in order, and we are going to assure that our debts are paid, that the people who work on Federal contracts and our military and Social Security recipients will get their paychecks. We have to assure the market. To raise the debt ceiling we have to show we are going to cut back on spending. That is the key.

We have to tackle the core problem. We have to stop spending too much, borrowing too much, and taxing too much. We do not have a taxing problem in this country, we have a spending problem. We are not being taxed too little, we are spending too much.

With $2.2 trillion in tax revenue collected, the Federal Government has the ability to live within its means. We must prioritize and we must make sure we get a private sector economy that will hire people.

I can tell you, small businesses are not hiring because they are terrified of the health care bill that was passed last year. They are terrified of the costs involved. Second, they are looking at people in Washington talking about more taxes, and they are saying: I am freezing right now. I am not going to take a chance that I am going to hire a new employee who is going to cost more than the productivity we can add to our business and keep going.

The cut, cap, and balance bill would make significant spending cuts now. It also requires the passage of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It takes a two-thirds vote of both Houses to do that, but we need to do it. We need to put the Federal Government on the same kind of fiscal constraint that almost every State in our Nation has; that is, a constitutional requirement that we have a balanced budget, that we do not borrow for operational expenses.

We can borrow for long-term projects, bonds--absolutely. But we are not going to borrow for our immediate needs. That is what kills the governments that overspend, of which the U.S. Federal Government is one. We need to have the balanced budget amendment that is in this bill passed, knowing that it is not going to be an immediate fix because the States would have to ratify it.

More than half the States will have to ratify a constitutional amendment. In that constitutional amendment we have an 18 percent of gross domestic product cap on Federal spending because that will put our fiscal house in order. We know that is long term. Certainly, we want to get started on that long-term constitutional amendment fix because once we do it and once the States ratify it--and I believe they will--then we will have the ability to assure future generations that we will never be in the fix we are in now.

Today the Federal Government is spending 24 percent of GDP. The 40- year average is 20.6 percent. We have about a 3-percent increase in the Federal spending level that is juxtaposed against a gross domestic product. If we put a spending cap of 18 percent in a constitutional amendment, we will have time to start drawing that down so it will not be an immediate hit. In fact, the bill that is before us has a gradual decrease in the caps on spending. We have the constitutional amendment part, that is the balance part.

We also have a cap in the bill that is before us. It is not an immediate cut, 18 percent, but it does ratchet down: 21.7 percent in the year 2013, 20.8 percent in 2014, and so forth until we get to 2021 which would have a 19.9-percent spending cap as a percentage of gross domestic product. It is a gradual cut between 2013 and 2021, in the cap on Federal spending. I think that is a responsible approach, and that is why I am fully supporting this bill. That is the cap part. We have the cut part that is real cuts. We have the cap part that puts the lid on spending going forward, and then we have the balanced budget part, which goes to the States and goes through our constitutional process to put us in the same situation most States are in; that is, with constitutional provisions that they have balanced budgets.

One of the most valuable economic lessons we have in this country-- because we have learned from history--is we cannot spend our way out of debt. That is the worst remedy. If you are a family in debt, you do not keep spending and you do not put a freeze on spending either, which is what was suggested in President Obama's budget. He said: We will just freeze at 2011 levels. But 2011 levels are inflated. Because of the huge stimulus bill that was passed we have an inflated level and we say let's freeze there. No; we need to freeze at a lower level. We need to start ratcheting down the spending in this country in order to assure that we start going toward a balanced budget. The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act is a reasonable way to cut spending now so we will not have that debt ceiling lifted again because we will bring down the deficit and not hit that debt limit again. So we bring down the deficits with immediate spending cuts, then we go forward with a cap that starts at 21.7 percent in 2013. Knowing we are at 24 percent now, we have to have those immediate cuts to start getting down to the reasonable level.

There is one more thing we need to do that is not in this bill but is something that if we are going to have the long-term debt reduction, we have to look at the entitlements and expenditures because our discretionary expenditures are roughly 30 percent of the total expenditures of our country. So we know we are out of kilter right now in Social Security because the actuarial tables have not been kept up- to-date. When Social Security was passed, the average man lived to be about 60 years old. Today, the average man lives to be about 77. We are going up--and thank goodness--with the life expectancy and quality-of- life. So if we are going to get our fiscal house in order, we do need to address that. We need to have a very gradual increase in the retirement age.

I have proposed a Social Security reform bill that does adjust the COLA, and it also has a gradual increase in the age of retirement. It stops at 69. The other thing the Gang of 6, or the Group of 6, did that I thought was very positive is, it put everything that depends on a cost-of-living adjustment in the Federal budget on a different calculation that is determined by economists to be a more realistic spending gauge, and it is the CPI, the Consumer Price Index. The CPI is adjusted in the Group of 6 proposal that will bring down the costs and will be a more realistic COLA, cost-of-living adjustment. So it is very important we look at that as one of the good parts of the Gang of 6, or Group of 6, proposal because it puts it more in line with reality, and it also will save money on the other end on the long-term strategy that we must have to adjust our fiscal requirements to meet the needs and the revenues that are coming in. The tax cuts that are also in the Group of 6 proposal will help spur the economy, and along with the spending cuts, will bring our debt interest requirements down. The cost-of-living adjustments are very minor but will have an impact over the long term. These are some of the good things that are out there.

Let me say in conclusion, we have had several of our leaders make proposals. We had Senator Reid and Senator McConnell put out a proposal. Of course, there were critics on all sides of

that proposal. Then we had the Group of 6 that came out with a proposal and there were people who criticized that immediately. I think we need to take the nuggets of these proposals--which there are some very good parts of the Reid-McConnell bill and there are some very good parts of the Group of 6 proposal--and let's not criticize people for putting forth ideas because that is how we start coming to a conclusion about what is the best proposal. To criticize the people who have come forward with very bold plans is a huge mistake, and I think it is unfair to those who have put something out to say: Oh, that is a terrible plan and we would never vote for it. Are you kidding? I mean, we need to come together with all the plans.

I am supporting this one, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, which I think came mostly from the House and some of our Senators. It is very solid. I certainly think Senator Reid and Senator McConnell didn't want us to come to August 1 and have no endgame. So they were preparing something that has some merit. They have a 302(a) allocation in theirs that is basically a cap on spending. We need to have that, and that part of their proposal is very sound. Then the Group of 6 has tax cuts as well as spending cuts and some adjustments in the mandatory spending side, the entitlements. We have to have those ideas all on the table.

Instead of being negative about everything, let's take some of the good parts we like and see if we can come to a consensus on those. That is what we have to do if we are going to have an end result that will assure our obligations are paid sometime in August when the true debt ceiling is hit. I think it is later in August. That is what is in conflict right now. I think it is later in August, and if we are going to meet those requirements that we have as elected Members of Congress, we are going to have to find some way to get there with the reforms that are necessary to give confidence to not only the people who hold our debt but to the markets that would assure that our economy is not going to collapse under the heavy burden of this debt. The reforms are a necessary element to lift the debt ceiling or we will not be sending the right message to our debtors nor to the people who might start hiring and getting this 9.2 percent unemployment down.

I hope we can have a very strong, positive vote on the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. We need to address these issues. Let's put it all together and let's start talking about what we have to do when that debt ceiling is reached, and this is a good start.

I yield the floor.