Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the Horn of Africa. More than 11 million people--twice the population of my State of Maryland--are now in need of emergency assistance to survive. Large portions of the Horn of Africa region are now in the grip of one of the worst humanitarian crises in the region in recent decades. Nearly half of the population in Somalia is in urgent need of assistance, and malnutrition rates are on the rise in neighboring Ethiopia and Kenya. Without the immediate action of the international community, it is projected that an additional 180,000 people will perish in the coming months due to the drought and famine. It is difficult to fully comprehend the levels of human suffering currently occurring in the region, as refugees flee famine-affected areas. People are literally walking for days without food and water to try to reach food and safety. More than 166,000 desperate Somalis are estimated to have fled their country to neighboring Kenya and Ethiopia in recent months--approximately 3,500 people are arriving every day at refugee camps in those countries compounding the already tenuous humanitarian situation in the region. On July 21, the United Nations declared a famine in two regions in southern Somalia. This declaration is not done lightly and is the first declared since 1992. Famine is only declared when acute child malnutrition rates exceed 30 percent and more than 2 people per 10,000 die per day. The U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, reports that the under-5 death rates in southern Somalia are higher than 4 children per 10,000 per day in all areas and as high as 13 to 20 per 10,000 per day in areas of south central Somalia. Already, outbreaks of measles, cholera, and watery diarrhea have been reported in affected areas as well. Unless this is addressed immediately through immunization campaigns and medical treatment, more people will perish from these preventable diseases. The United States is one of the largest donors of emergency assistance to the region, helping more than 4.4 million of those in need and providing over $431 million since last October. The actions taken by our Nation and the international community in anticipation of the drought last year has helped save countless lives. Through the Famine Early Warning System, we saw data come in, and we were able to move resources into the region and implement programs to provide food in critically affected areas throughout the Horn of Africa. However, emergency assistance alone cannot solve the underlying long-term problems. The United States continues to provide longer term development assistance through Feed the Future and other programs, which are working in the region to address the root causes of hunger and malnutrition. USAID Administrator Shah was in Kenya last week and met with Somali refugees there. He met with a woman who had traveled for 33 days by foot with her two children and suffered a robbery along the way, in order to arrive at a refugee camp in Kenya and have access to safety, food, and basic human security. He also visited with a 4-year-old boy who, in the acute malnutrition wing of the hospital at the camp, weighed only 19 pounds and was reliant on a nasal feeding tube and very specific feeding regimens in order to, hopefully, survive. There are countless more stories like this, of people who risked their lives to bring themselves and their families to a safe environment. This crisis has several contributing factors--most notably the worst drought on record in 60 years, which has devastated crops and livestock. But another major contributor to this crisis is the complete lack of governance in Somalia, a failed state for more than two decades, and the ongoing conflict there and in particular, the al- Qaida-affiliated Somali militia, al-Shabaab. Since 2009, al-Shabaab has prevented most Western aid organizations from operating in their territory, and it is no coincidence that the areas of famine are areas controlled by al-Shabaab. My sincerest hope is that al-Shabaab will stand aside and allow international organizations to assist people in their territory, people essentially held hostage by this radical, Islamist group. The U.N. estimates that an additional $300 million will be needed just in the next few months to help those affected by this humanitarian disaster and that approximately $1.8 billion will be needed to fully address the massive scope of this crisis and help the people in the Horn of Africa. Without this crucially important funding, nearly 200,000 people could die. To date, this appeal is less than half way met by the international community. The international community must do more to meet this appeal. This situation is a clear example of the critical importance of maintaining a strong U.S. commitment to emergency food assistance. The House of Representatives passed a fiscal year 2012 Agriculture appropriations bill that would cut funding for emergency food assistance by 75 percent from just 3 years ago. This comes at a time when not only is there famine in the Horn of Africa, but around the world needs are increasing as food prices remain high and the number of people affected or displaced by natural disasters and conflict continues to increase. The international disaster assistance level specified in the House State-Foreign Ops appropriations bill for fiscal year 2012 would result in emergency humanitarian programming reaching 19 million fewer disaster-affected people than it would if the account were appropriated at the fiscal year 2011 level, based on average costs per person by the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance at USAID between 2006 and 2009. If we cut the migration and refugee assistance and emergency refugee and migration accounts, as the House Foreign Operations bill does, we would jeopardize U.S. support for many of the world's 48 million forcibly displaced people, the majority of whom are assisted and protected by the international community. This includes almost 1 million Somalis. Before the current crisis in the Horn, 725,000 Somalis were seeking refuge in the region. Since the onset of the current crisis, 100,000 Somalis have arrived in Kenya and 75,000 in Ethiopia. Obviously, cuts of that magnitude would lead to catastrophic consequences. This could affect millions; primarily women and children suffering from hunger as a result of conflict and natural disasters would lose access to lifesaving food. This would significantly reduce America's ability to address instability in volatile countries and decrease its capacity to respond quickly to the needs of hungry people affected by conflict and natural disasters. Aside from the national security implications for the United States in this already unstable region, the U.S. Government has a moral responsibility to help the least fortunate, both at home and abroad. As a global leader, the United States should not shy away from helping the least fortunate, regardless of race, religion, or nationality. In addition, the United States should encourage greater international participation. It is the moral, human course of action to take, but it is also the smart thing to do: a more stable and prosperous Somalia keeps the rest of the world and the United States more secure as well.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, we all know we are running against the deadline of Tuesday, August 2, on raising the debt of our Nation, and there is a real risk that if we don't make that deadline on Tuesday, there will be checks from the Federal Government that will not be able to go out. The number of 70 million is used as the number of checks written each month by the Federal Government that go to employees, that go to contractors, that go to recipients of certain benefits. Let me talk about 4,000 Federal workers who already have been furloughed. It doesn't have to do with raising the debt ceiling; it has to do with the failure of the House of Representatives to send a clean extension of the Federal Aviation Administration--the FAA reauthorization bill--for us to consider. As a result of the failure to pass the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration or to pass a short-term extension of the FAA, 4,000 workers at the Federal Aviation Administration have been put on furlough. That in and of itself has a major impact on our economy. That is 4,000 Americans who are no longer receiving a paycheck. It affects people who work for the FAA in such fields as safety engineers, computer scientists, aeronautics engineers, physical scientists--the list goes on and on-- jeopardizing the progress we have made in keeping our airways safe and jeopardizing the convenience to those who travel by air. Many of those workers live in the State of Maryland, so it is having a direct effect on the State I have the honor of representing in the Senate. It goes beyond just the Federal workforce who have been put on furlough as a result of the failure to pass a short-term extension of the FAA. It also goes to construction contracts that are funded through aviation funds. At many airports around the Nation, there have now been stop orders on construction of runways, construction of towers, and construction of other improvements that are important to keep our airports modern and safe and convenient in handling the increased number of air passengers. Let me tell my colleagues that, yes, it affects those large contractors who are doing the work of the Federal Government. It is going to affect their payrolls and their workforce, but it also affects a lot of small businesses in Maryland and around the Nation. Let me give one example. Chappy Corporation is an electrical and mechanical operations small business specializing in airport landing systems and lighting. Chappy Corporation is the lead contractor implementing BWI's--the main airport in Maryland--ASDE-X project, a runway safety mechanism that enables air traffic controllers to detect potential runway conflicts by providing detailed coverage of movement on runways and taxiways. For the safety of all of us, I hope we would want to move forward with those types of improvements in our major airports in the Nation, including the one which most Marylanders use-- BWI Airport. Chappy Corporation has been told to stop work on this important aviation safety project, thus decreasing their value and making it more difficult to make payroll. It is already tough for small companies out there today, and now, because of the failure of the House to send over to us a clean extension of the FAA bill, which we have done many times in the past, we have a company such as Chappy which is running the risk of its strength to continue with its current workforce and to do important work at airports for safety. It also goes beyond the Federal employees and the contractor employees who are not getting a paycheck and the contractors whose work has been stopped and they are not getting their construction contract payments. It also affects the Federal Aviation Administration's revenues. They collect a lot of revenue. There is a ticket tax. When a person buys an airline ticket, they pay a tax that goes into the Federal Aviation Administration's funds which are used for improvement projects at our airports. That amounts to about $30 million that will not be collected. What happens to that money? Well, we lose it in the Federal Treasury. People say: Well, maybe it will make it less expensive for people to travel. But that is not the case. Let me quote a headline from Reuters: ``Airlines Raise Fares as Taxes Lapse.'' I am quoting: Many U.S. airlines have raised fares in recent days to take advantage of a lapse in U.S. ticket tax collection after Congress failed last week to fully fund the Federal Aviation Administration's budget, but passengers are not likely to notice any price difference. JetBlue Airways Corp. and Southwest Airlines Co. began raising ticket prices by at least 7.5 percent on Friday, according to FareCompare.com. Other airlines, such as Delta Air Lines and United Continental Holdings Inc., boosted prices on Saturday. So we can't collect the 7.5-percent tax and the airlines are pocketing the money. The people who are purchasing tickets are still paying the same amount even though none of that money is going to improve our airports. It makes no sense whatsoever. All of these occurrences--the Federal workers not getting a paycheck and being put on furlough, contractors not getting paid and construction work not being done, revenues not being collected that are necessary for the Federal Government--are hurting our economy. All are making it more difficult for our recovery. Why has this happened? The reason, quite frankly, is that we have not been able to pass the reauthorization bill. We passed the reauthorization bill early in the session, the Senate did. The House passed a bill about 100 days ago but has refused to appoint conferees to work out the differences. Then the House sends over--because we didn't meet the deadline--an extension bill that includes a partisan labor provision, an antilabor provision. Now, that should never be in an extension bill. It shouldn't be in any legislation. But it should be negotiated between the conferees of the House and Senate so we can get a reauthorization bill done. They shouldn't use an extension bill in order to get that done, and that is what they have done. As a result, we have the consequences of Federal workers being furloughed, contractors not being paid, and revenues necessary for our airport improvements not being collected. So what should we do? What do we need to do? Well, we need to first pass a short-term extension, a clean short-term extension without these killer amendments attached to allow our workforce to be able to work and to get their paychecks, to allow contractors to continue the work they are doing, and to allow the government to collect the revenue necessary to keep our airports modern. That is the first thing we should do. Secondly, we need to negotiate in good faith between the House and the Senate conferees so we can pass the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill. That bill contains many very important provisions, including what we call NextGen, which is the way in which we can operate our air service in a much more efficient way, using less fuel, less time, and helping our economy. The FAA reauthorization bill is estimated to create hundreds of thousands of jobs for our country. We need to get that done. So we need to negotiate the bill, get that done, and all of that will help create more jobs for our community. I urge my colleagues, particularly those in the House, to send us a clean extension bill, negotiate in good faith, and let's get the FAA bill done. Actually, I see the ranking member of that committee, our colleague from Texas, who may wish to talk about it or some other issue. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Charles Vallejo Anderson, an intern in Senator Merkley's office, have the privileges of the floor for the balance of today.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Ten minutes.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, let me first thank our assistant Democratic majority leader for his incredible work on the Bowles- Simpson Commission. Senator Durbin was a real voice of reason and brought together diverse views. We need that this week. And then with the Gang of 6, with our colleagues in the Senate on both sides of the aisle, he was able to bring us together in achieving two goals--and that is what we need to do--one is we need to raise the debt limit and, secondly, we need a credible plan to deal with the deficit. I think Senator Durbin has added greatly to accomplishing those goals, reaching across party lines, and understanding that it cannot be what the Democrats want or what the Republicans want but we have to work together. But I must say that at this moment, we are 7 days away from the August 2 date. So we have two goals. Goal No. 1 is to raise the debt limit so that we don't default on America's obligations. Raising the debt limit needs to be our goal No. 1. We have already incurred this debt. This is not about increasing America's spending; this is for spending that has already occurred, and now we have to pay the bills. The cost of default is unimaginable to the American people. We will pay more as taxpayers because the cost of government borrowing will go up. We know that. That is not speculation; we know that. But the cost to every American will go up because the cost of home mortgages will go up, the cost of credit card interest will go up, and student loan costs will go up. All of the borrowing costs in America will go up. It will also hurt our economy. It will cost us jobs. It makes no sense whatsoever to be here without raising the debt limit. Senator Reid's proposal does that through 2012. It gets the job done. Speaker Boehner's proposal does not get it done--another short- term extension. We should listen to the experts in the market. Christian Cooper, who is a currency expert and trader, said: From the markets' point of view, a two-stage plan is a nonstarter . . . There is significant risk of a downgrade with a deal that ties further cuts to another vote only a few months down the road given the significant resistance to do the right thing now. Speaker Boehner's proposal just kicks the can down the road for a couple more months without resolving the problem. And that is Goal No. 1. The Reid plan accomplishes that. Goal No. 2 is having a credible plan to get our debt under control. The President was right as he explained last night how we got here. He went through how, under the Bush administration, the previous administration, we took a surplus to a deficit by cutting taxes not once but twice, by two wars that were not paid for, by spending programs that weren't paid for, and now we are in a situation where we have a nonsustainable deficit. That is accurate. It is our responsibility to make sure we have a credible plan to deal with the deficit. Leader Reid's proposal gives us that glidepath. I think all of us would like to see a grand deal, a grand bargain. That is not going to be achieved by August 2. Senator Reid's proposal gives us the glidepath for a responsible, credible plan to bring our debt under control. Speaker Boehner's proposal does not do that. It just basically says we will deal with it at a later time. Look at the downpayment. Leader Reid gives us $2.7 trillion of deficit reduction now that we can enact by August 2, while Speaker Boehner gives us $1.2 trillion. It is clear that $2.7 trillion really gets us much closer to the $4 trillion goal we all know we need to achieve, but it also gives us a game plan to be able to achieve the $4 trillion in deficit reductions we all know we need to do. Madam President, you and I are in agreement on how we can get that done now. We know that. We have a plan. The problem is that we can't get that done by August 2 because we can't get the Republicans in the House to move on a balanced plan. We understand that. Well, the Reid proposal preserves all options but gives us a way to get to the $4 trillion of deficit reduction that is clearly needed. It allows the use of a joint committee that will use a balanced approach. We have models they can look at. The Bowles-Simpson Commission is a balanced approach to bring in a credible plan to deal with the deficit. The Gang of 6 gives us a balanced approach in order to deal with our deficits. So we have the model before us in order to get it done. Let me tell you why I think Leader Reid's proposal is the best way for us to proceed 7 days before the August 2 deadline. It gives the Republicans basically what they have asked for. We can't do this by Democrats alone. We need Democrats and Republicans working together. The Reid proposal represents the views of the Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle. Why do I say that? From the beginning, the Republicans have been saying we have to have a dollar-for-dollar reduction in debt for a $1 increase in the debt ceiling. There is no relationship between our current spending and what the debt ceiling represents because, as I said earlier, it represents what we have already spent. But, OK, that has been what the Republicans said we had to do. Leader Reid's proposal does that--a $2.7 trillion reduction in the deficit with a $2.7 trillion increase in the debt ceiling. The second thing the Republicans have asked for--not all but many--is that we can't consider revenues in the package. Now, I disagree with that. I don't believe you can have a credible plan to deal with the deficit unless you include revenues, getting rid of the loopholes, getting rid of shelters. We could do that without increasing rates. We have said that many times. But the Reid proposal--what we would vote on by August 2 that accomplishes our goals--will do it without additional revenues. It preserves the right of revenues in order to have a credible plan to reach the $4 trillion target, but we get our $2.7 trillion without any revenues--something the majority of Republicans have been asking for. The third point: The $2.7 trillion in cuts the majority leader put on the table represents cuts that have been negotiated between the Democrats and Republicans. Madam President, $1.2 trillion was included with Vice President Biden, the $1 trillion in cuts in regard to our overseas operations was included in the Ryan budget, and the list goes on. So these are cuts that are achievable, that have already been negotiated or agreed to between Democrats and Republicans. I applaud Senator Reid. I think Senator Reid understands the seriousness of us moving forward. It allows us to move to increase the debt ceiling and preserve our rights to negotiate and get the grand bargain done and has a fallback mechanism with a joint committee that would have required votes on the floor to make sure we all have a chance to vote up or down. It preserves our options, allows America to move forward, and allows us to concentrate on job growth and security, which should be our focus as we rebound our economy for the future of our Nation. For all those reasons, I hope my colleagues will support the effort of Senator Reid to bring us together to avoid the unspeakable default that could occur 1 week from today. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Cambridge International, Inc., the world's largest manufacturer of metal belting and wire cloth, on the occasion of its 100th anniversary. Cambridge International is a thriving, dynamic manufacturing company that is a testament to the resiliency of American manufacturing. The company is located in Cambridge on Maryland's Eastern Shore and is a world leader in engineering and manufacturing metal mesh, conveyor belts, wire cloth, filter leaves, and other industrial materials. The company exports its products worldwide, requiring sales facilities in the U.S., Mexico, and Brazil. Since the company was founded on September 17, 1911, Cambridge International has grown to more than 400 employees and has three divisions: Industrial Belting, Architectural Mesh and, most recently, Environmental Technologies, CET. CET is developing new products to meet the needs of older existing manufacturers. Starting with the firm's own headquarters, CET has completed a $4.8 million renovation that included installing energy efficient heating, ventilation, and cooling, HVAC, and lighting systems and bathroom and equipment upgrades. Installation of a wood waste gasification system will ultimately allow Cambridge to power new production equipment in its manufacturing facilities. CET product offerings include an electrostatic precipitator, ESP, that functions at an efficiency level above the Environmental Protection Agency's pollution control standards for components for major waste-to- energy projects. Cambridge International is hiring 36 new employees to support its new green manufacturing division and CET is creating a green job market that will continue to grow and offer expanding employment opportunities. Cambridge International is a valued business and employer in Maryland. As Cambridge International celebrates its first 100 years of manufacturing, I ask my colleagues to join me in looking forward to Cambridge's next century of manufacturing innovation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medical FSA Improvement Act of 2011. I am joined in this effort by Senator Enzi and I thank him for his support. Our bill would allow employees who have medical FSAs to cash out unused amounts, effectively repealing the current ``use-it-or-lose-it'' policy. Our legislation would modernize and encourage participation in FSAs, which are a helpful tool for health care consumers who face significant cost sharing burdens. It would remove the penalty on employees who act prudently throughout the year and save their FSA dollars. Flexible spending arrangements are an important benefit for many of my constituents in Maryland, Federal, State, and private sector employees, that allows them to set aside a portion of their income tax- free to pay for out-of-pocket medical expenses, such as co-payments for doctor visits and prescription drugs, medical supplies, and equipment. Nationwide, about 35 million Americans have FSAs, and the median salary of FSA participants is $55,000. It is estimated that one-third of Federal employees contribute to an FSA. Currently in Maryland, there are over 50,000 Federal employees who benefit from FSAs. These plans are efficient, the administrative costs are between two and three percent of claims, far lower than other health insurance administrative costs, and over 90 percent of claims can be substantiated electronically, meaning that paperwork for participants is minimized. More than 85 percent of America's large employers offer FSAs, but only about 20 percent of eligible employees enroll. According to several surveys of eligible participants, the primary reason for declining to enroll or for underfunding accounts is concern about the ``use-it-or-lose-it'' rule, which requires participants to spend their entire contribution before the end of the plan year or risk forfeiting the unused funds back to their employer. This ``use-it-or-lose-it'' rule was initially enacted to prevent participants from putting excessive amounts in their FSA, and it served to regulate what used to be an uncapped benefit. With the enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, annual contributions to FSAs will be capped at $2,500 beginning in 2013, which makes the ``use-it-or-lose-it'' rule unnecessary. It is unreasonable to expect FSA participants, especially those with chronic conditions, to be able to accurately forecast their out-of- pocket medical expenses a year in advance, and it is unfair to penalize them at the end of the plan year if their estimates are incorrect by making them forfeit any unspent amounts. Ending the ``use-it- or-lose-it'' rule and allowing for this cash-out option is a wise and sensible improvement to FSAs that will encourage more efficient participation in medical flexible spending accounts. It is time to modernize FSAs to eliminate this burdensome ``use-it- or-lose-it'' rule. It is both fair and sound health policy to allow FSA participants to cash-out remaining funds at the end of the plan year rather than forfeiting the balance to their employer. The amounts cashed out would be taxable for the year of the cash-out. Moreover, just as it is at the discretion of employers to establish FSAs for their employees, it would be the employer's option to offer the cash- out feature. But I believe many employers will offer this option, as they too will save money through increased employer payroll tax savings. Data provided by WageWorks shows that the average unused balance in the end of the year in an FSA is about $100, and each year a total of nearly $400 million remains in FSA accounts. The static analysis, before considering the effects of greater participation in FSAs, would indicate that allowing a cash-out of these funds and taxing these unused amounts would increase federal revenues by about $70 million a year, holding everything else constant. Our legislation is supported by the Employers' Council on Flexible Compensation, representing more than 100 member companies, including employers, accounting and consulting firms, third party administrators, and actuarial companies. I am also pleased to announce the support of the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents more than 150,000 Federal employees in 31 agencies. I commend Representatives Charles Boustany and John Larson for having introduced a bipartisan companion bill in the House of Representatives, and urge my colleagues to support this common-sense measure.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medical FSA Improvement Act of 2011. I am joined in this effort by Senator Enzi and I thank him for his support. Our bill would allow employees who have medical FSAs to cash out unused amounts, effectively repealing the current ``use-it-or-lose-it'' policy. Our legislation would modernize and encourage participation in FSAs, which are a helpful tool for health care consumers who face significant cost sharing burdens. It would remove the penalty on employees who act prudently throughout the year and save their FSA dollars. Flexible spending arrangements are an important benefit for many of my constituents in Maryland, Federal, State, and private sector employees, that allows them to set aside a portion of their income tax- free to pay for out-of-pocket medical expenses, such as co-payments for doctor visits and prescription drugs, medical supplies, and equipment. Nationwide, about 35 million Americans have FSAs, and the median salary of FSA participants is $55,000. It is estimated that one-third of Federal employees contribute to an FSA. Currently in Maryland, there are over 50,000 Federal employees who benefit from FSAs. These plans are efficient, the administrative costs are between two and three percent of claims, far lower than other health insurance administrative costs, and over 90 percent of claims can be substantiated electronically, meaning that paperwork for participants is minimized. More than 85 percent of America's large employers offer FSAs, but only about 20 percent of eligible employees enroll. According to several surveys of eligible participants, the primary reason for declining to enroll or for underfunding accounts is concern about the ``use-it-or-lose-it'' rule, which requires participants to spend their entire contribution before the end of the plan year or risk forfeiting the unused funds back to their employer. This ``use-it-or-lose-it'' rule was initially enacted to prevent participants from putting excessive amounts in their FSA, and it served to regulate what used to be an uncapped benefit. With the enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, annual contributions to FSAs will be capped at $2,500 beginning in 2013, which makes the ``use-it-or-lose-it'' rule unnecessary. It is unreasonable to expect FSA participants, especially those with chronic conditions, to be able to accurately forecast their out-of- pocket medical expenses a year in advance, and it is unfair to penalize them at the end of the plan year if their estimates are incorrect by making them forfeit any unspent amounts. Ending the ``use-it- or-lose-it'' rule and allowing for this cash-out option is a wise and sensible improvement to FSAs that will encourage more efficient participation in medical flexible spending accounts. It is time to modernize FSAs to eliminate this burdensome ``use-it- or-lose-it'' rule. It is both fair and sound health policy to allow FSA participants to cash-out remaining funds at the end of the plan year rather than forfeiting the balance to their employer. The amounts cashed out would be taxable for the year of the cash-out. Moreover, just as it is at the discretion of employers to establish FSAs for their employees, it would be the employer's option to offer the cash- out feature. But I believe many employers will offer this option, as they too will save money through increased employer payroll tax savings. Data provided by WageWorks shows that the average unused balance in the end of the year in an FSA is about $100, and each year a total of nearly $400 million remains in FSA accounts. The static analysis, before considering the effects of greater participation in FSAs, would indicate that allowing a cash-out of these funds and taxing these unused amounts would increase federal revenues by about $70 million a year, holding everything else constant. Our legislation is supported by the Employers' Council on Flexible Compensation, representing more than 100 member companies, including employers, accounting and consulting firms, third party administrators, and actuarial companies. I am also pleased to announce the support of the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents more than 150,000 Federal employees in 31 agencies. I commend Representatives Charles Boustany and John Larson for having introduced a bipartisan companion bill in the House of Representatives, and urge my colleagues to support this common-sense measure.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in my capacity as cochairman of the Helsinki Commission to again draw attention to the tragic consequences of Turkey's invasion and ongoing occupation of the Republic of Cyprus begun 37 years ago today. I applaud the leadership demonstrated by President Christofias in an attempt to bring about a comprehensive settlement and reunification of his country based on a bizonal, bicommunal federation with political equality, as defined in the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, with a single sovereignty, single citizenship and single international personality. Attempts to resolve the Cyprus issue are exacerbated by Turkish intransigence; the continued deployment of tens of thousands of Turkish troops in occupied northern Cyprus; and the introduction of an estimated 160,000 settlers from mainland Turkey. Indeed, the reality is that settlers outnumber indigenous Turkish Cypriots altering the demographic composition of that community by a margin of about two to one. Previously, I have addressed a number of specific human rights concerns stemming from the ongoing occupation, including freedom of movement, property rights, and freedom of religion. Under my chairmanship, the Helsinki Commission convened a public briefing, ``Cyprus' Religious Cultural Heritage in Peril'' to document the desecration and destruction of sacred sites in occupied Northern Cyprus. Today, I want to focus on the situation in the city of Famagusta, the once thriving commercial center and tourist destination on the east coast of Cyprus, featuring the country's deepest water port. This cosmopolitan city, home to nearly 50,000 Cypriots, was a center for trade and finance as well as culture, known for its many museums and vibrant nightlife. The second wave of the Turkish invasion, launched in August 1974, targeted Famagusta and the surrounding region. Seaside hotels that attracted tourists from throughout the world and other important high rise buildings were targeted for bombardment as residents were forced to flee. Today, barbwire rings the city of Famagusta, a veritable ghost town except for Turkish troops patrolling the perimeter of this once bustling urban center. What looters left behind is slowly being reclaimed by nature and decades of exposure to the elements. The only thing I can compare this scene to comes from my walk along the deserted streets in the city of Prypiat, a Ukrainian city of similar size to Famagusta, located in the Chornbyl exclusion zone a short distance from the site of the world's worst nuclear accident. While health concerns keep the residents of the former away, armed Turkish troops prevent lawful residents of Famagusta from returning. Notwithstanding numerous U.N. resolutions on Cyprus, including provisions specifically addressing the city of Famagusta, Turkey continues to illegally occupy a third of Cypriot territory, preventing Greek Cypriots from returning to their homes and businesses in the occupied area, including Famagusta. In keeping with these UN resolutions and principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act, it is time for Turkey to end its illegal occupation of the sovereign Republic of Cyprus. Agreement allowing the lawful residents to return and rebuild the city of Famagusta would be an important step in the right direction.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to point out the obvious; that is, we are 13 days away from August 2, the date Secretary Geithner has indicated, if we do not raise the debt ceiling, that America runs the risk of defaulting on its debt and not paying its bills. I bring this up because this is an issue on which we never should be this close to this deadline. It has been pointed out many times that the debt ceiling has very little to do with how much money we spend. It has nothing to do with how much money we spend because we already spent this money. The question is whether we are going to pay our bills, whether the United States is going to live up to its obligations, or whether we are going to default on our debt. The prospect of not making that deadline is basically unthinkable, that the United States would give up its preeminent position internationally. It could jeopardize the U.S. currency being the global currency. It would have an effect on everyone in this Nation. We already have heard from the rating houses. Last week, both Standard & Poor's, S&P, and Moody's Investors Service warned they are considering downgrading the country's credit rating if the debt ceiling is not raised. A smaller firm, Egan-Jones Ratings, has already downgraded the U.S. securities. What happens if we get the major rating houses saying we are no longer AAA bond rated? Well, it will have an immediate effect on costs for taxpayers in this country. It will cost us more to borrow. That means we will have to pay higher taxes in order to pay the interest on the national debt. It will affect all credit in this country. It is estimated that the typical homeowner will pay an extra $1,000 a year on mortgage costs. The average credit card holder will pay an extra $250 a year in credit card interest. In other words, the interest rates of the Federal Treasury notes affect all the interest rates in this Nation. All of us will pay more, and it will cost jobs. It will cost us in our retirement savings. It will affect each one of us. Yesterday, the people of Maryland found out another way the failure to increase the debt ceiling will have an effect on Maryland taxpayers; that is, the rating houses have indicated that if the Federal credit is jeopardized, the State of Maryland's AAA bond rating is in jeopardy. Why? Because Maryland depends, as do most States, upon the Federal Government. Governor O'Malley, as the Presiding Officer knows--when you were Governor of West Virginia, you managed your State well. The credit ratings you deserved were based upon what you did in your State. That is true in Maryland. But Marylanders will find that their credit costs will go up if we don't increase the debt ceiling by August 2. We are all in this. We should never be this close. We should make sure we increase the debt ceiling by August 2. Yes, I do hope we use this as an opportunity to get our spending and our budget in order. We need to manage our deficit. We all understand that. We have to bring our debt under proper management. I have taken the floor before to sort of go over how we got here. I am not going to do that today, but I am here to tell you that the Democrats in the Senate, under Senator Conrad, have come in with a proposal that we think is well-balanced, that has more deficit reduction, quite frankly, than any plan that is out there. It is comprehensive, and it will allow us to be able to continue to grow our economy because the best thing we can do for our deficit is to create more jobs. The Conrad Democratic budget does that by investing in education, by investing in innovation and in infrastructure. It also recognizes we have to bring the deficit under control. It protects Medicare and Medicaid because we know those programs are important for our seniors and important for our economy. So we protect high-priority programs and include more deficit reduction by having a balanced approach. That is what we should do in addition to raising the debt ceiling. We should have a comprehensive approach. Let me cite some of the numbers of what the Conrad budget does. It brings spending down to 22 percent. I heard some of my colleagues talk about the historical averages. Twenty-two percent of our economy would be the same spending amount, on average, we had when Ronald Reagan was President. I think most of us would agree the Reagan years were certainly conservative in terms of government spending. That would bring down the percentages, despite the demographic changes in this country. I think that is quite an accomplishment. The revenues would be equal to what the revenues were as a percentage of our economy when Bill Clinton was President of the United States and when we had the strongest economic growth and the greatest job growth in modern history. So these are responsible programs. It also, by the way, says to our government workers, who should not be used as scapegoats and who are doing incredible work under difficult circumstances and are being asked to do more with less since they have already made the sacrifice with a 2-year pay freeze--the Conrad Democratic budget says enough is enough and doesn't ask our Federal workers to make additional sacrifices beyond the 2-year pay freeze they have already been subjected to. I know there are other efforts and I hope we will continue those efforts. I have spoken before about the Bowles-Simpson approach, and we have the bipartisan group working. That is how we should proceed. But, quite frankly, this cut, cap, and balance is not a bipartisan effort; it is an extreme effort by Republicans to bring forward a budget that is even more severe and more radical than the Ryan budget. I call it cut, cap, and kill when it comes to Medicare. Why do I say that? I have taken the floor regarding the Republican Ryan budget to point out the impact on the Medicare system, which would be to increase the costs, on average, to our seniors, when it is fully implemented, by an additional $6,500 to pay for health care. I know the Presiding Officer has been through West Virginia and I have been through Maryland and I know our seniors are already paying too much for health care. They cannot afford another $6,500 a year for their health care. We should be looking at reducing their health care costs, not increasing them. But the cut, cap, and balance approach would go even beyond that. It is estimated there would be another $2,500 in costs on top of the $6,500, so $9,000 of additional costs, when fully implemented, to our seniors for health care. That is cut, cap, and kill on Medicare, and I don't think any one of us wants to be responsible for that. I heard my colleagues talk about job growth, and we are all for job growth. The cut, cap, and balance bill is estimated to cost us hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs. Why do we say that? Well, the objective is not very subtle. The objective, as the Heritage Foundation has said--and this was just sent out to us--this would cut the size of the Federal Government by about half within 25 years. Are we going to tell our students they can do without half of their Pell grants? Yesterday, I joined students from around the Nation and presidents of colleges to talk about the importance of the Pell grant. At Morgan State University in Maryland and the University of Maryland Eastern Shore--both historically Black colleges and universities, in which 80 percent of their student body is made up of minority students--50 percent depend upon Pell grants. Half of that number could not be there without Pell grants. We are saying it is OK to cut the Pell grants in half? No, it is not OK. Are we going to tell our seniors we are going to cut Social Security in half? Are we going to tell those people who need unemployment insurance they are going to get 50 percent? It is not sustainable. I heard my colleagues talk about predictability. Well, the cut, cap, and balance bill is not going to be sustained. It is a radical approach. We can do better. Quite frankly, David Brooks, the conservative columnist, said it best. I will quote what he said about where the Republicans, particularly in the House, are trying to lead this Nation. David Brooks wrote: . . . the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative. The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no. That is from David Brooks, the conservative columnist. We need to have the system work. We need Democrats and Republicans working together. We need a budget plan that is predictable, that gets our budget under control, that allows America to create the jobs we need, and that invests in education, innovation, and infrastructure so America can continue to lead the world in economic growth. That is what we need to do. It starts by raising the debt limit so America does not default on its obligations and for us to work in a bipartisan manner to develop a budget plan that gets the debt under control but allows America to live up to its commitments to our seniors, to our students, and to create the job opportunities for tomorrow. That is what we need to do, and that is what this Senator is prepared to do. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have filed a formal objection to the consideration of H.R. 872, a bill to exempt pesticide applications from coverage under the Clean Water Act. I rise today to explain the reasoning for my opposition to this bill. H.R. 872 is based on the notion that the law governing the licensing of pesticides provides all the environmental safeguards that are necessary. In proponents' view, obtaining a Clean Water Act permit would be duplicative. That is incorrect. As chairman of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I have serious concerns about how pesticide pollution is impacting human health, natural resources and the economies that depend on them. Today, more than 1,800 waterways in the United States are known to be impaired because of pesticide pollution. Limited water quality sampling suggests the number is actually much higher. In a nationwide study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, more than half of the streams sampled had concentrations of at least one pesticide that exceeded a guideline for the protection of aquatic life. In California alone, more than one in four of the State's waters are officially listed as impaired because of pesticide pollution. Chesapeake Bay is the most biologically diverse estuary in the country and serves as a vital economic resource to the region. One recent study found that portions of the bay with higher concentrations of pesticide pollution exhibited decreased species diversity and reported a ``surprising number'' of such sites in the lower bay. Pesticide pollution in the Chesapeake has been linked to fish kills and abnormalities. Moreover, extensive samples taken from Chesapeake tributaries displayed a range of pesticides and herbicides. Atrazine, one of Maryland's most used herbicides, was detected in every water sample taken. The active ingredient in atrazine is resistant to natural degradation in water and inhibits photosynthesis in plants. The USGS found that concentrations of atrazine commonly found in agricultural streams and rivers produced reproduction and development abnormalities. Pesticides, by their very nature, consist of various toxins. They are regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, to determine if they are generally safe to use. The law is not designed to deal with the many real-world instances in which those ``general'' conditions are not applicable. Pesticide pollution can cause severe reproductive and developmental harm and even death. Even at levels that allow for the product to be registered, pesticides may cause health problems in fish, amphibians and other aquatic species. Additionally, pesticide pollution can affect human health through contaminated drinking water and bioaccumulation in those that eat contaminated fish. These pollution levels are the result of massive releases of pesticides that are having adverse environmental impacts that go far beyond what is regulated under the general application rule in FIFRA. We need FIFRA, but we also need the Clean Water Act. Approval of a pesticide under FIFRA only requires that the active chemical ``will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.'' Clean Water Act permits, on the other hand, are approved based on a pesticide's impact on a specific waterway. It takes into account the water body specific context including specific uses, such as swimming and fishing, and whether significant fish species rely on the waters. Additionally, Clean Water Act permits place enforceable limits on the amount and type of pollutants that can be discharged. FIFRA registration is not an acceptable substitute for water discharge permits. The localized impact assessment and enforceable discharge limits of Clean Water Act permits are far better equipped to address water quality issues than FIFRA's nationwide cost-benefit-based assessment. To exempt pesticides from comprehensive regulation would unreasonably compromise the quality of our waterways. Clearly, the Nation has a problem with pesticide pollution in our waters that needs to be addressed. The courts have said so, and scientific data reinforce that conclusion. That doesn't mean that every backyard application of a weed-killer needs a Clean Water Act permit. Providing targeted exemptions of de minimis users of pesticides makes good sense. Generally speaking, backyard applicators and local lawn care companies should be exempt from coverage. Regulating these users would do little to improve water quality and would be an unnecessary burden on them. Emergency applications to control mosquito outbreaks associated with West Nile virus or a new outbreak of gypsy moth, for example, should be allowed. Permits could be obtained after-the-fact in these emergency situations without penalty. Agricultural applications to land should continue to be exempt. Permits should be easy to obtain and impose minimal monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. H.R. 872 simply goes too far, providing blanket exemptions and ignoring the real water quality problems that pesticides are causing in America's waters today. I support a more balanced approach. The Clean Water Act has resulted in tremendous successes in preserving and restoring U.S. waterways, but many of our waterways are still impaired and require further attention. To categorically exempt pesticides from Clean Water Act permitting would be a step backwards in our nationwide efforts to ensure our waterways are healthy and safe. We can do better.

Mr. CARDIN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, we are getting dangerously close to the August 2 deadline. The August 2 deadline is the deadline for America to increase its debt limit or to face default on our obligations. We need to come together. We need to increase the debt limit, and this is an opportunity for us also to manage our debt. We have been talking about this for a while, and I understand--and I think my colleagues understand--the responsible thing for us to do is to use this opportunity to increase the debt limit to also craft a game plan to manage our national debt and our spending. We need to have a credible plan. Our debt is not sustainable. We cannot continue along this path. We understand that. We have to have a credible plan to manage our deficit. Well, quite frankly, the Democrats have come up with these plans. The proposal offered by Senator Conrad, the chairman of the Budget Committee--and supported by all the Democrats on the Budget Committee, and I am proud to be a member of that committee--brings forward a credible proposal that has all the elements of our budget on the table. It reduces government spending. It deals with protecting the priorities that are important for America's growth. It invests in education. It invests in innovation and in infrastructure so we can create the jobs necessary for America's prosperity. That is what that budget does. It brings about more deficit reduction than the Republican budget, bringing our debt under control. We understand we need a bipartisan budget. It is not going to be just what the Democrats want. That is what the political process is all about. Midterm elections: The House is controlled by Republicans. The Senate has a Democratic majority. We have to come together. What many of us have said in this body is let's use the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson proposal as a starting point. That has all the elements on the table, including mandatory spending and including doing a better job on revenues. It is a bipartisan proposal. Democrats have said we are willing to work and come out with what we call the grand deal--the deal that will manage our debt and all elements of the Federal budget will be on the table as we talk about that. But there is one option that should not be on the table, and that option is to allow August 2 to pass without increasing the debt limit; in other words, to permit America to default on its obligations. That is one option that cannot be on the table. Quite frankly, what concerns me is there seems to be a growing number of Republicans who say that is an option; that is OK; it will be all right for us to pass August 2 without increasing the debt limit. Let me quote, if I might, from David Brooks, the conservative columnist, who said: . . . the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative. The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no. The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars or intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it. I know the majority leader in the House of Representatives, Mr. Cantor, tells us there is no compromise that can pass at the present time in the House of Representatives. I don't accept that. I think Democrats and Republicans working together in the House can pass a grand deal under the parameters that have been talked about at the White House. But what Mr. Cantor needs to do is work with the Democrats as well as the Republicans in the House of Representatives. We have to come together, Democrats and Republicans. The one part of the option that should not be on the table is to allow us to pass August 2 without raising the debt limit. Let me talk about the consequences. I have said I believe they are catastrophic consequences, and I do believe that. We know it is likely--almost certain--that the rating houses will downgrade America's currency from the most secure currency in the world. We would be downgraded. We run a real risk as to whether the dollar will continue to be the global currency. Right now, many international transactions are related in dollars. We know that as it relates to energy. All of a sudden, on August 3, we run the risk that the American dollar will no longer be the global currency, having a major impact on the U.S. economy. J.P. Morgan tells us we could expect an immediate increase in interest costs of 75 to 100 basis points. What does that mean? Well, for the taxpayers of this country, it means it is going to cost more money for us to pay for our borrowing. That will raise the cost of interest payments which I would suggest is a not very productive use of taxpayer dollars, causing taxpayers to have to pay more for our borrowing. But it goes well beyond the Federal taxpayers. It affects every family in America. The estimates are that the effect of the increase in U.S. obligations on interest rates will have an effect on all borrowing. So if a person is buying a home, they can expect the interest costs will increase by about $1,000 a year. If a person is a credit card holder, they can expect their interest rates to go up about $250 a year. That is the effect it is going to have on every American family if we pass August 2 without increasing our debt limit. If a person has money in the stock market, they can expect there will be a reduction in the value of their wealth. We saw that happen once before when retirement account values slipped dramatically. We are at risk of having that happen again if we pass August 2 without increasing the debt limit. The impact it will have on our economy, on jobs--we expect it will clearly have a negative impact on our job market. We will lose jobs and we very well may go back into a recession. That is why this is catastrophic if we don't deal with the debt limit in a mature way. Let me cite the numbers. In the month of August, we expect we are going to have about $172 billion of revenue coming into our Treasury, but we are going to have $360 billion of bills coming in--spending we have already incurred that we have to pay for. There are those who say we can pick which bills we want to pay and let the others go. They say we will have some winners and losers. Well, I think we will have all losers, because we can't pick winners and losers. There are some who say, well, obviously, we will pay interest on the national debt. OK, we will pay that. How about Social Security, and how long can we pay Social Security? If we don't pay Social Security, what happens to those on fixed incomes or, if we reduce the Social Security payments, how does someone who has planned their monthly budget manage with getting, say, 40 percent less of their Social Security in August? How do they handle their obligations? Then what do we do about Medicare? Do we continue to pay Medicare at 100 percent? Well, I assume we are going to run out of money. What do we do about our military, our soldiers, who we all say we want to support? Do we continue their salaries or do we reduce their amounts by, say, 40 percent? If we pay all of those, there is no money left over to pay veterans' benefits. What happens to our veterans who are depending on their checks to be able to meet their obligations? Then what do we tell our students who are preparing to go to school in the fall about their Pell grants, that their Pell grants aren't going to be available and maybe they can't go to school in the fall? They have to make plans right now. What do we do about small business owners who are depending upon their contracts with the Federal Government in order to make their payroll? Is their money going to be coming in on August 3? We can't pay those bills unless we raise the debt limit. It has nothing to do with increased obligations of this country; we are talking about spending we have already incurred, that has already been obligated, and now the people who are entitled to the money are asking for their checks. What do we do on August 3? I don't believe we have a choice. I think we must increase the debt limit. I don't think it is an option not to. No responsible legislator would consider that to be an option. Yes, let's use that opportunity to manage our deficit. I still hold out hope we can get this grand deal. It has to be fair. It has to be balanced. It has to allow America to grow and it has to allow us to create more jobs. It has to invest in education and innovation and infrastructure so America can compete. We know we can get that done if we use a balanced approach: Reduce government spending at all levels, including the military, as we bring our troops home from Afghanistan. Yes, we need to look at the money we spend through our Tax Code. We have talked about this over and over. We need to have a balanced approach, a credible approach, to manage our debt. That should be our first option. But under no circumstances should we allow America to default on its obligations, causing harm to every American family. I urge my colleagues to put the national interests first and to take off the table the default on our debt. Take that off the table. Let's put the national interests first and work together to bring about a credible plan to manage our national debt. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.