Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would just ask unanimous consent that following the majority leader I regain the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as of now, we are scheduled to vote on a motion to proceed to S.J.R. 20 regarding Libya. We have been called into session--having made plans to spend this week in our States meeting with constituents, as we try to do at least once a month-- because there is a budget crisis in this country, because we have a debt ceiling of over $14 trillion that is getting ready to be hit and we need to focus on that and that alone during this week. We have been talking about it, we have been talking around it, but, honestly, we don't seem to be making much progress. If we are going to do anything this week, we should be talking about how we are going to address this issue. This is what is on the minds of the people of our country today. I was home over the weekend, having just gotten back, and everyone I talked to is scared to death about this debt, about what is going to happen. People think there does need to be significant change, reform, a different way of doing business than borrowing and borrowing and borrowing. They are also concerned about hitting the debt ceiling and not lifting it. They are wondering what in the heck we are going to do. So now we are back here in session because of that crisis, and somehow we are talking about Libya. Libya is important. It is important because there are American troops, part of a coalition that was put there by the President without consulting Congress, and now there is a resolution, which, frankly, I cannot support. I will not give the President authority to continue. I think we need a full and fair debate. But now is not the time to be doing this, when we are 4 weeks away from a potential debt crisis that could affect the people in our country right now--people who depend on our government to function--as well as our global standing. So let's talk about what we could do. What we could do is produce a budget. It has been 797 days or so since the Senate has passed a budget resolution. So we haven't set the level of spending and the priorities for spending that are our constitutional responsibility. It is Congress's responsibility to pass a budget. We haven't passed a budget in almost 2 years--almost 2 years. We have to do that because we are coming up on--in about 3 months-- the end of a fiscal year. We should be passing appropriations bills that are based on a budget. But we don't have a budget. So I would say, let's get back to basics. When you have a big problem, you go back to the basics, where you have to start to solve a problem. And the basics are a budget. I think we all agree if we get a budget on the floor there is going to be a lot of amendments. There is going to be a lot of amendments to a budget resolution. Let's get started. Let's use this week to produce a budget resolution and let's start having the amendments about spending levels, about spending priorities. That will be a way we can start the process of determining if we can, in fact, lift the debt ceiling. There are significant cuts in spending we can make as a country that would show the rest of the world--those holding our debt, as well as the American people who are living with this government and holding part of the debt--that we are serious; that we are going to get our financial house in order, and we are going to do it with a budget resolution that cuts spending and sets priorities as every family and every business in this country is required to do. Most States, by the way, are required to do it as well. A few don't, and we see them sort of ambling over toward the ``B'' word--bankruptcy--which is just not a possibility. That is not a possibility for this country. We need to take the reins right now to assure the world knows we are not going to handle our fiscal responsibilities by continuing to borrow when we know we don't have the revenue coming in to pay for all these programs. So I am going to vote against cloture today. I am going to vote against cloture, along with, I know, many people for different reasons. Some people are voting against cloture because they do not think we ought to be giving the President the authority to continue going into another country's civil war when we have such commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq, when we are overdeploying our troops, when we are spending money that we are having to borrow, when we are taking the lion's share of this responsibility for our allies. Many of us think we shouldn't be adding another country, where it is supposed to be a support function, when we all know that is what leads to something more, and then something more. I thought Senator Lugar said it very well when he said that then you have the aftermath of the end of a civil war and the responsibilities for that. This is not the time, in my opinion, to be giving that kind of authority to the President. But above that--above that--we are here because there is a crisis upon which I think we have a united view of the goal, and that is to put our fiscal house in order. But we are not united in the Senate about how to do it. So let's have that debate this week. Let's have that debate that says we should be spending more or we should be spending less; that we should be taxing more or taxing less, because we have real disagreements on that. I am in the spend less, tax less group, but there are views that are differing. Let's put it out there and start the debate. Because if we have a budget resolution, then everything can be solved from there. If we have a budget resolution that we can agree is the right amount of spending for the debt crisis we are in, then we will know the way forward to dealing with the debt crisis. That is a real possibility, and that is what we ought to be talking about. I will not support cloture on a motion to proceed to a Libya agreement that says the President can continue the involvement. I think we need to deal with the crisis that Congress has a say in doing. Certainly Congress had a say in producing it, and we are the ones responsible to the American people for solving the problem that has been created. I urge my colleagues not to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed to the Libya resolution and, instead, turn to the budget, put a budget resolution out, and, for the first time in almost 2 years, we can begin to talk together to solve this problem by passing a budget resolution that will lower spending and hopefully keep taxes low so our fragile economy can continue on the path toward improvement, that would have businesses feel confident to hire people, rather than putting obstacles in place, and get this unemployment rate of over 9 percent off the books. That would be the answer for this week, in my opinion. I hope the majority leader will turn to the budget and let's solve the crisis at hand. I think that is why we are in session this week. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. S. 724 is the Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011. There are 80 cosponsors of this legislation. It is very simple and straightforward. It ensures that in the event of a government shutdown, our Nation's men and women in uniform would continue to receive their military pay and allowances. That is what it does. This legislation will protect all Active-Duty men and women, including those in the Coast Guard and Reserve components. I introduced this bill earlier this year because we were in the process of having a meltdown with our appropriations. We need to have a law that assures if there is a shutdown, whether it is on an appropriations issue or on a budget issue or on a debt ceiling issue, we know where the money will go--where the protections will be. I think our military should be front and center. I also think Social Security recipients should be front and center, but this bill is for the military because they are in harm's way as we speak in many places around the globe and we don't want to disrupt their families or have them worry for 1 minute about their families while they are doing their duty. These military families have faced stress from repeated deployments since 9/11. The last thing they should worry about is not receiving their paycheck on time because Congress and the President have not been able to do the job they need to do. Immediately after introducing this bill, I was contacted by a military spouse. Her husband was on his 10th deployment in support of operations in the Middle East. The spouse was at home raising their 1- year-old son. She was very concerned about whether she was going to be able to pay her bills. Multiply that story by many thousands and one can imagine the stress of these families across our Nation who have loved ones in harm's way. This should not be compounded by adding an unnecessary financial stress that is the fault of a Congress unable to pass an appropriations bill or a Congress and President unable to reach an agreement to cut our deficit so the debt ceiling will not have to be raised again. At a time when our Nation has 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and 45,000 in Iraq, it would be unconscionable to ask our troops to serve on the front lines without ontime pay. From my home State of Texas, there are more than 28,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines currently deployed. This is second only to California in the highest number of deployed troops from one State. I would like to especially recognize the soldiers from the 36th Infantry Division of the Texas National Guard. They are currently serving in the southern region of Iraq and are doing a great job. These brave Texans are working long hours in the extreme heat, facing a dangerous enemy. But the most remarkable aspect of their service is they all raised their hands to volunteer to do it. The very least we can do is pay them on time. It would be tremendously damaging for morale to tell our troops to go on long deployments, maybe multiple deployments, away from their families, and then not pay them at the normal time. I know if there is one thing this Congress can agree on, it is our tremendous pride and support for the brave men and women in uniform. I think Congress has shown that time and time again. We all learned a lesson after what happened during the Vietnam war and after the Vietnam war, when the disagreement about the policies of the war were actually imputed to those who were following orders to implement that war. We will never let that happen again. It hasn't happened since, and it will not happen. There is not one Member of Congress who doesn't respect our military and the service they are giving--even if they disagree with the policies, which many often do. So I wasn't surprised when I introduced this bill to get 80 cosponsors immediately. It is becoming clear that negotiations on a long-term deficit reduction plan may go down to the wire. The President said yesterday he will insist on tax increases to pay for a continued Federal spending spree. Republicans are clear: We must lower government spending to affordable levels, and there must be fundamental changes in how Washington spends the American taxpayer dollars. Now is the time for Congress to vote to assure that our troops will not miss a paycheck due to gridlock in Washington, not at midnight on August 2 or whenever we are adjourning, hopefully, for a recess so Members can get home and work in their districts. If the Senate cancels its July 4 holiday recess--which is now on the books--it is time for us to spend that time on nothing else but this issue--long-term deficit reduction. We should start our work by making sure we have a plan B that our troops and their families will not be political pawns in the struggle between raising taxes and cutting spending. If we are here, it should be for one purpose and one purpose only; that is, debt reduction and the preparation for what happens if that deadline passes and there is not an agreement. I can't think of a better way to say we are preparing for the worst while we are hoping for the best, and that is that we make sure certain essentials are done. Obviously, interest on the debt is our first obligation. The second one is to pay our military personnel who are overseas, who are deployed, and to make sure they are not worrying about their families at home having the money to pay the mortgage and the bills that must be paid on top. So I hope the Senate will take up this bill, and I am going to ask that we consider the Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011 is on the agenda if we are in session next week. That seems to be what is in the works right now. If that is the case, let's do something productive. I can't think of something more productive and more reassuring to our military than to pass S. 724, with 80 cosponsors. If it comes to the floor, it is going to pass. It will go to the House, and I assure you it will pass. So let's start that process. If we are going to be here next week and a lot of plans are going to be disrupted, we are willing to do that. But let's make it worthwhile by passing significant legislation, such as ensuring that our military is paid on time if for any reason we are looking at a government shutdown. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, before I start my remarks, I would like to say that in about an hour we will start voting on the nomination of General Petraeus to lead the CIA, and I am going to enthusiastically support that nomination because I do think General Petraeus has shown the kind of military leadership that makes our country proud. He has come in at some of the hardest times in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I have met with him in Iraq to see exactly what he was doing, how he was implementing his counterinsurgency proposals, and I think he is a gifted leader. I also believe in this war we are in--the war against terrorists--the CIA and the military have such a necessary link, and in many ways they are codependent on the information and the capabilities that each uniquely has. So I think he will do the same great job he has done in public service in this kind of arena that has become much more closely linked to the military, for sure. So I will support his nomination.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. When I was there last week, Dr. Samuel Ting, who is the Nobel laureate from MIT who built the spectrometer and talked about and convinced us of the importance of putting it on the space station, he was there with Mark Kelly and myself, and he said they had 1 billion hits now of those cosmic rays and he was on a cloud, literally, about what they are learning already. Mark Kelly said, in a press conference that we had, that it was the most significant achievement that he has ever made in his entire career as an astronaut. I believe he will be proven right, and I think Dr. Samuel Ting will be eligible for another Nobel Prize in physics if we can really find the genesis of matter and antimatter in space, which he said we would; that you cannot duplicate on Earth except by trying to put these atom smashers and electron smashers on Earth but at much bigger expense than being able to do it in space where it just happens. Billions already, he said. So thank you. I leave the floor. I know we digress, but it is very exciting.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate so much the words of the Senator from Florida because, of course, he is not mentioning the great leadership he has portrayed. He is today the only Member of the Senate who has actually gone into space as an astronaut, and his love for and zeal for our space exploration is unsurpassed, and I appreciated working with him. It was our joint bill that passed last year that assures a way forward for NASA; that assures that there will be manned space exploration; that we will use the space station, in which we have invested hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, for not only health benefits for our country but also learning about dark energy. The dark energy and antimatter research that is being done right now, I witnessed myself last week when I visited the NASA facility at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX. We are now getting information on the cosmic rays that are coming into the spectrometer that has just been put on the space station by CDR Mark Kelly and his crew during the most recent shuttle mission, and we are going to possibly learn the genesis of the universe by this facility that was put aboard the space station and the research that is going to be done on dark matter and what happens when it meets matter. It is really exciting, and I believe that the way forward that Senator Nelson and I have put NASA on, I believe, is going to assure that we have private sector involvement; that there will eventually be a transition to the private sector, but in an orderly way so that we don't lose the expertise in which we have invested so much. I hope later, before I leave, we will get a chance to talk about that. I am looking forward to going to the last launch of the space shuttle that America will put up. The systems that we have had will end after this last space launch that will happen in early July, and then we will be in the process of building the new vehicle which we have put in place in the law to begin to shorten the gap between the time that we can put Americans in space with our own vehicle. We are going to try to make that a shorter timeframe by the law that we passed. So, Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida and look forward to having more opportunities to talk about the importance of space exploration and America's preeminence in that field. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the Senator would yield.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to discuss Social Security and its future. This is certainly an issue that affects all Americans, and now is the time we can address it in a way that will not be horribly obtrusive to the people who will be on Social Security in 25 years, when it just hits the bottom and we have stark realities that are going to hurt people. We can avoid that. Last Thursday, I introduced, with Senator Jon Kyl as an original cosponsor, S. 1213, the Defend and Save Social Security Act, a bill that will secure Social Security for the next 75 years without raising taxes and without cutting core benefits to anyone. Madam President, 28 years ago this past April, Congress and President Reagan came together in a bipartisan manner and acted decisively to address Social Security's finances to save the program for retirees. The men and women of that Congress, working with President Reagan, did it because at that time the program's expenditures had begun exceeding revenues in 1975. By mid-1982, the Social Security trustees warned: Social Security will be unable to make benefit payments on time beginning in the latter half of 1982. So the President and the Congress, in a bipartisan effort, started on a glidepath of raising the retirement age to meet the current actuarial tables. Today, we are in roughly the same place. This spring, the trustees estimated that the Social Security trust fund reserves will be depleted in 2036, which is 25 years away. We have a little more time than President Reagan and Congress had back in 1982. The trustees today estimate that at that point in time, payroll tax revenue to the Social Security trust fund will only be able to pay out 77 percent of benefits to beneficiaries. In today's dollars, that would mean a cut in benefits of 23 percent, or $271 a month average, in core benefit cuts if we do not do anything. Last year, just to give you the numbers, 157 million American workers paid Social Security payroll taxes, totaling about $637 billion in revenues. However, a total of $702 billion in benefits was paid to the approximately 54 million beneficiaries. These numbers are clear. The amount of Social Security benefits being paid out now exceeds the revenues that Social Security is collecting. The trustees, when they gave their report a month or so ago, said that to increase the assets you could increase taxes right now. The payroll taxes on employees and employers could go from 12.4 percent to 14.5 percent right now during this jobless economic situation. I would not vote to raise taxes on our Social Security payers now or our employers. It would be unthinkable. The other thing suggested by the trustees that would meet this shortfall is that you can have a cut in benefits right now. An immediate cut of $150 a month from core benefits would do it. Well, what kind of option is that? It is no option. We are not going to do that. Everyone knows we are not going to do that. We are not going to raise payroll taxes and we are not going to cut core benefits now. We have more time today than the ``race against the clock'' that occurred in 1983. We have the option for 25 years of doing something that would have a gradual reform to shore up Social Security and give future retirees sufficient time to prepare for the modest changes in raising the retirement age. If we wait, we have a 23-percent cut in core benefits. So it is imperative for Social Security's financial future that we join together again in a bipartisan effort to stabilize Social Security and ensure that full benefits are paid out for the next 75 years. We can do it if we do not delay. In 1935, when Social Security was established, there were 40 workers supporting each retiree. Twenty years later, in 1955, the ratio was nine workers supporting one retiree. Today, there are three workers supporting one retiree. In tandem with these rapidly changing and troubling demographics is the fact that we also must start taking the necessary steps to pay down--not add to--our national debt. We know Vice President Biden, along with members of the House and Senate, is negotiating. As we speak, the staffs are working and the Members have been meeting. They are negotiating to try to do some kind of spending cuts before the debt ceiling is reached. The $14 trillion debt ceiling will be reached around the first of August of this year. So now the Vice President and the group from the House and Senate are meeting to try to cut spending, because we are not going to raise the debt ceiling unless there is real reform. A number of us on both sides of the aisle have agreed, we have got to have spending reforms so we do not have to raise the debt ceiling again beyond $14 trillion. Now is the time we can address the issue of the debt and do it in a responsible way, because if we just use discretionary spending for the reforms needed, we will never get there. We will never have enough cuts in discretionary spending. Why is that? It is because discretionary spending is less than 50 percent of the spending of our government. It is the mandatory spending that is the vast majority of the spending. Discretionary spending is in the 40-percent range--60 percent is mandatory. So we cannot get to responsible budgetary cuts without looking at the entitlements. Now, what kind of entitlements do we have to work with? Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I think we can do a lot to reform Medicare. But it is complicated, and it will take time. It will take time to work out all of the pieces because so many people are dependent on Medicare. It is the people who use Medicare, and it is the providers who provide it, and it is the insurance companies that augment and supplement it, so there are a lot of moving parts in Medicare which we need to address. But what can we do between now and August 2 that would make a real difference, that would put us on a more responsible path, and begin to make the reforms that would allow a responsible lifting of the debt ceiling, knowing that we are going to cut those deficits so we will not have to do this again, hopefully ever. That is where Social Security comes in. My Defend and Save Social Security Act, which Senator Jon Kyl and I are sponsoring, will do the following: It will raise the age gradually. Under my bill, with Senator Kyl, anyone who is currently 58 years old or older will not be affected at all by the gradual increase of the retirement age. For everyone else, the normal retirement age and the early retirement age would increase by 3 months each year starting in 2016. The normal retirement age would reach 67 by 2019. Keep in mind that we are already on the glide path to go to 67. That is what President Reagan and the previous Congress did, and that was done with the Greenspan commission's input later. So with that trajectory, we will go to the 67 age. My bill takes us to 67 in 2019. We would already be going in that direction anyway. It then goes, by 2023, to age 68, and by 2027 to 69. The early retirement age would gradually increase to 63 by 2019 and, by 2023, 64. So you have 3 months per year added to the retirement age. It is a very gradual increase, to 69 or 64. The second part is the COLA. We do not cut core benefits at all. But the cost-of-living increase is meant to hedge against rising inflation. When inflation gets above 1 percent, then you need, in my opinion, to start helping people with COLAs. Under my plan, we would have COLAs after inflation is over 1 percent. The average COLA has been 2.2 percent. The rate of inflation has been about 2.2 percent over the last 10 years. So the average COLA would, under my bill, start after 1 percent. If it is 2 percent, you would get a 1-percent COLA. I believe that a 1-percent reduction in the COLA, not for benefits, would be preferable to the drastic cuts in core benefits that will evolve if we do not do something now. In today's dollars, a 1-percent cost increase that you would get in a COLA is about $11. So you would not get $11 of increase, but you would get your core COLA. Then after 1 percent, you would get the regular COLA that would be expected. So my bill will generate cashflow for Social Security, maintain a positive balance for the trust fund over the next 75 years. Social Security's deficits would be eliminated under my bill. We had the Social Security Administration look at our proposal and give us all of our numbers. According to the Chief Actuary, my proposal would achieve, in the next 10 years, $416 billion in deficit reduction. What that means is, in perspective for what we are dealing with in the budget talks for the debt ceiling lift, we are talking about a 10- year window. Within that 10-year budget window, we could take out $416 billion in deficit reduction, along with the spending cuts in discretionary spending that are part of any kind of reform. So we can address a responsible cut in the mandatory spending over the 10-year period with these very gradual and small adjustments, and help in our deficit reduction, which we have to do if we are going to achieve the reductions that must be done. Every year we wait, we are going to have to shave more off the COLAs or the age. There are some proposals out there that take the age to 70, and maybe over the next 25 years that will be part of our actuarial table, because today the average lifespan is 77, so people are wanting to work longer. They are healthier longer. A lot of people are trying to keep working longer. I think more and more of the companies and employers want that experience, want the experienced people to stay longer. So it is part of our actuarial adjustment that we should be making. Over the next 25 years, we would be going into the long-term adjustments that are necessary. If we look, say, out until 2085, we will take $7.2 trillion off the Social Security requirements. So now you are talking about fiscal responsibility looking at both sides of our spending equation, mandatory as well as discretionary, which gives us a real chance to make a difference and to say this Congress, hopefully working with this President, because it has to be bipartisan--we cannot pass a bill the President will not sign. The Democrats are in the majority in the Senate. Republicans are in the majority in the House. So this is going to take some compromising. The Republicans do not control the Senate, and the Democrats do not control the House. And the Republicans do not control the White House. So it is not as though we are able to say: My way or the highway. You cannot do it, and neither can the President. So we have got to come together if we are going to make the very tough choices that will get our fiscal house in order for future retirees to have the cushion that Social Security would be--it is supposed to be a safety net--to talk another day. But we need a better retirement option for our retirees as well, so they can save more in IRAs. Because Social Security is not supposed to be a pension plan. It is a safety net. It is a supplement. So if we can solve this, the next thing we ought to be doing is adding more options for people to save. We have done some of that with the bill I sponsored with Senator Barbara Mikulski, the Democrat from Maryland, with spousal IRAs. We have increased the amount you can save and that a stay-at-home spouse can save, and we have made some major good moves in the right direction. But that is different from what we are talking about today, which is Social Security. I have written a letter to the Vice President. I have asked him to put Social Security on the agenda, because when we finish all of these discussions, they are going to come back with cuts in discretionary spending, but it cannot be enough when it is less than 40 percent of our spending. We have to look at entitlements if we are going to be responsible. Since I have filed my bill last week, and have had the opportunity with the Heritage Foundation and the media to talk about my plan, we are getting some good support. Of course, we are getting the people who say: No cuts, no way, no how. We expect that. But it is burying your head in the sand if you say: No way, no how. So we are getting some support. The founder of the Association of Mature American Citizens, Dan Weber, who on their Web site says they now have 160,000 members--the fastest growing organization for older Americans in our country--has stated his support for my proposal. They see changes have to be made. They have even gone a step further and talked about private accounts, which I certainly support, but it is not in my plan. I appreciate the Association of Mature American Citizens being willing to do what is right for their constituents, their retirees, but also for the long-term, to say we know that if we are going to have a responsible approach, entitlements must be on the table. And Social Security is one that we can do, if it is bipartisan, together. My plan will address the issue now, with no tax increases and no cuts in core benefits. It will have the gradual rise in the retirement age, affecting no one before the year 2016 and after that just 3 months a year in added age to be eligible for Social Security. The cost-of- living adjustment would be adjusted 1 percent down, and after 1 percent inflation, then you would have the cost-of-living adjustment as well but no cuts in core benefits. The amendments of the past--in 1983--the amendments that have put us back on track with actuarial tables in the past can be done again. It is my great hope that we can step up to the plate, as those who came before us did, and do the right thing for the long term and burst the bubble that we can reform spending only addressing the discretionary side. It is a myth. Anyone who tells you with a straight face ``I am not going to look at the entitlements'' is not being a responsible steward of our problem. That is what we were elected to do, and I hope we can put together a bipartisan coalition, working with the President, to do it. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Association of Mature American Citizens article by Dan Weber.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to voice concern about the current state of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In 1949, more than 60 years ago, the United States joined with 11 other nations to create the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, in order to ensure the mutual security of the member nations. From the beginning, the United States has served as NATO's backbone and provided a major share of the cost in manpower and resources. We have consistently answered the call of our NATO allies when they needed us, even when there was no clear United States interest involved. For example, in 1993 the U.S. military answered the call to participate in the NATO air action to enforce a U.N. ban on all unauthorized military flights over Bosnia and Herzegovina. After the Dayton Peace Accords in 1995, the United States stationed over 10,000 personnel in support of peacekeeping missions in Bosnia. For the following 9 years we continued to retain a large number of forces there. In 1999 the United States again stepped up and provided a major share of the military resources for operations in Kosovo. At that time I argued that we were assuming too many commitments in areas of the world where our own interests were vague. When President Clinton announced that he intended to send 4,000 U.S. troops for peacekeeping in Kosovo, I said: If we think the United States has the responsibility to go into all these civil conflicts, we are going to dissipate our resources and we're going to place a heavy burden on our taxpayers. Today, after years of involvement with NATO-led operations in the Balkans, our forces are still a major component of the NATO Kosovo force, and we are still contributing approximately 800 troops to that effort. In fact, of the 22 nations now in NATO contributing troops in Kosovo, the United States military makes up approximately 13 percent of the total force. As far as cost is concerned, the U.S. taxpayer is still footing a very large bill for our presence in Kosovo. In fiscal year 2010, the President asked for $252 million to pay for operations in Kosovo. In fiscal year 2011 it was $312 million. Now as part of the fiscal year 2012 Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund, the President is asking for $254 million. With this example in mind, I am now deeply concerned that we appear to be in the same position again, this time with NATO in Libya. On March 31, NATO assumed command and control of operation Unified Protector, and was thereafter responsible for enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya. With this transfer of authority and responsibility from the United States to NATO, there was also an implicit understanding that all of NATO member states would be expected to dedicate the necessary resources to adequately enforce U.N. Resolutions 1970 and 1973. However, almost immediately after taking command, NATO requested a 48- hour extension of support from American fighter aircraft. This request for continued support from American air assets seemed to be at odds with the President's statement that coalition forces would be able to keep up the pressure on Qadhafi's forces. So, once again, our Nation is called upon to provide a large share of the resources and funding for another NATO mission that is not in the vital security interests of the United States. Indeed, Secretary of Defense Roberts Gates stated on April 21 at a DOD press conference that ``while it is not a vital interest for us, our allies considered it is a vital interest. And just as they have helped us in Afghanistan, we thought it important, the President thought it was important, to help them in Libya.'' We are now on track to spend more than $800 million of U.S. taxpayer money this fiscal year on operations involving Libya. I ask, with significant concern, how are these operations going to be paid for? Where is DOD planning to get the extra almost $1 billion to spend on this operation? What programs will need to be cut to fund this third operation in which we are now involved: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya? Will the President be submitting a supplemental appropriations bill on Libya? With the example of Libya in our minds, let us be clear as to exactly what our allies are contributing to the efforts in Afghanistan. As part of the International Security Assistance Force, which is the command in charge of operations in Afghanistan, the United States is contributing 70 percent of the total force, with 46 nations contributing the remaining 30 percent. As we review the landscape of American military commitments overseas, let me emphasize that with U.S. forces deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan we should not also be participating in such a major way in an open- ended conflict in Libya, where we have no clear, vital national security interests. Moreover, I believe our NATO allies who do have a vital interest in Libya should be willing to play a lead role in terms of funding as well as military resources. The fact is, NATO and the Arab League should be shouldering the brunt of the military and financial burdens associated with Operation Unified Protector, just as we are doing in Afghanistan, and have been doing in Iraq. If we had all members of NATO contributing proportionately to the mission in Libya and also had the Arab League providing comparable financial and military assistance, the overwhelming commitment of our own U.S. forces would be lessened to a manageable degree. I am frustrated that our NATO allies continue to contribute such a small amount of resources for operations that are in the vital interest of many NATO member states. In Libya, I believe if the U.S. military were to stop providing to our allies our unique military capabilities, NATO operations for both the no-fly zone as well as the civilian protection mission would be seriously degraded and could terminate. How have we arrived at this unfortunate state of affairs? Why is it that NATO nations are unwilling and unable to effectively operate against a weak and isolated nation such as Libya without significant military contributions from the United States? One reason we are in this position is because many NATO members are not contributing enough of their gross domestic product to defense. Instead, many NATO members simply look to the United States and the American taxpayer to pay for any gaps in defense capabilities. Because many NATO nations do not invest strategically in their military capabilities, they are heavily dependent on the United States to pay for advanced equipment such as intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance platforms to support their NATO operations. I agree with Secretary Gates' recent assessment, that NATO is turning into a two-tiered alliance in which very few members except for the United States take on the hard power combat assignments. Instead, the majority of the NATO partners limit themselves to soft power work such as delivering humanitarian aid. Indeed, of the 28 NATO members, only 5--the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Greece, and Albania--exceed the agreed-upon ratio of 2 percent of gross domestic product to be spent on defense. Two decades after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. share of NATO defense spending has now risen astoundingly to more than 75 percent. Secretary Gates put all of our efforts under NATO alliance operations together at 75 percent. We are all aware that the United States is facing very hard and real serious fiscal constraints. Hence it is clear that we can no longer continue to pay for the vast majority of NATO operations that are not in the vital security interests of our Nation. It is time for the United States to ask our allies to step up and keep the agreement they made when they became part of NATO, or for the United States to consider reducing our spending level that we now provide to NATO and also move to redeploy a large portion of our military presence in Europe back to the United States. I have spoken on the floor many times about my concerns for maintaining such a large military presence in Europe and I will continue to fight for spending cuts to a largely unnecessary and expensive U.S. military presence on the European continent. It was decided in the last administration to cut back to two brigade combat teams in Europe, in Germany. We have now had the two be expanded to four. The other two are now in limbo. So there are now four brigade combat teams in Europe. Two were supposed to move back to the United States and the military construction to house at least one of those has been done at a cost of over 400 million taxpayer dollars. So we have the capability to bring home troops, taxpayers have spent $400 million in pursuit of that, the barracks sit empty, and we still have four brigade combat teams in Europe, in Germany. Unfortunately, here is the message we are sending to our European allies by that military presence, and by our operations in support of NATO, that American taxpayers are willing and able to shoulder the burden for their defense, and that there are apparently no consequences if the Europeans fail to do their fair share. We need to change that message. We need to make our Nation's current financial difficulties a priority. Our message should be that NATO has been a valuable alliance for 60 years, and it can be in the future, with a concerted effort by our allies to share the burden. That means truly sharing. The United States should lead when and where our capabilities are essential. We do have vast capabilities. When they are essential we have shown we will always be there. But others can lead where they have the capability to do so, and they need to do it with personnel and with the appropriate level of funding. The complacency of our allies is increasingly a threat to our national security for we are shouldering more and more of the burden, even where our involvement is not in the vital interests of the United States. The American taxpayer can no longer afford to write endless checks for NATO operations. It is time for our allies to shoulder their responsibilities and reduce their dependence on U.S. military forces. We want to maintain our military strength. We have the greatest military in the world. There is no doubt about that. But to keep our military strong, we cannot over-deploy our forces. I have talked to people who have been to Afghanistan six times on rotations--six times. Most of our people who have gone to Afghanistan have gone more than once, and that is following all of the time they have been to Iraq as well. We must keep our military strong by not overburdening them because our allies are not doing their share and supplying the troops they agreed to provide when they became members of NATO. For us to keep the strength we have, or to handle the big operations where we have the unique capabilities, we must be smarter about allocating and sharing the responsibilities. We can continue to lead and take the biggest share, but not 75 percent of the share and continue to remain strong, especially with the financial constraints we have today. We are in the midst of negotiating how we can lower our deficit so we don't hit that $14 trillion debt ceiling without a plan for bringing down the deficit so we will never have to lift that debt ceiling again. So it is in everyone's interests for our allies to step up to the plate. They made agreements. It used to be a 3-percent gross domestic product commitment that was required for NATO. Now we are talking 2 percent, and only five countries--only five countries--meet that test. That is not a sustainable alliance. If we allow them to drag down their strongest member, it will not be in the interests of anyone if something big happens that requires an immediate and robust response. So I appreciate that Secretary Gates, in his final days in office has talked very straight to our NATO allies. I hope they are listening, and I hope they are prepared to act. Yes, they have financial constraints too; we understand that. But it is time the burden be shared. It is time we have a real alliance in which we remain strong so we maintain the strength to respond to the big emergencies when we are called. Being dragged down by smaller contingencies that can be handled by others, whether it is Kosovo or Libya--and, certainly, we also are concerned about the situation in Syria and Yemen--we can let others be in the lead in those areas so that when the big things happen--such as Afghanistan which will continue to require our commitment--those major efforts can be led by the United States with our unique capabilities and our commitment. Our military remains the best in the world. Our equipment is the best in the world. Our training is the best in the world. We need to maintain that strength with an alliance that accepts its responsibility for burden sharing. Where we are required to lead and are uniquely capable we will do so but we cannot allow ourselves to be continually placed in the position where these contingencies drag down our capabilities for the future. So I applaud Secretary Gates for starting this dialogue in earnest. We have talked about it for a long time--for years, actually. We have talked to our NATO allies about stepping up to the plate. Even in good financial times that didn't happen but for a few. I will say that Great Britain has always been there, and we have had other strong alliances, including Australia--not in NATO but certainly a strong ally. Canada is also a strong ally, but it is time for us to reassess our contributions in NATO to preserve our strength so that we are there and prepared for major operations, which is in all of our interests. Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 423.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this amendment, I hope, will save our businesses and our States the millions of dollars they are now spending to implement the health care reform bill, which is in the courts. Yesterday, the court in Atlanta--the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals--heard arguments from the government and the State about whether the Florida District Court ruling that the health care law is null and void because it is unconstitutional should be upheld. Since we are in this court fight and this will surely go to the Supreme Court-- there is no doubt that either side that loses is going to appeal--my amendment would put a moratorium on the implementation of the law. So it would save the Federal Government and the taxpayers who are paying for it, and it would save the State governments that are trying to implement a law that may be unconstitutional and cost millions of dollars to adjust their system and the businesses across our country that are trying desperately to determine if they are going to be able to even offer health insurance or if they want to offer health insurance to their employees anymore. We are in a time when there are unprecedented regulatory burdens on our businesses. We are facing a $14 trillion national debt in this country--trillion. We are looking at having to raise that debt limit if we don't severely cut spending and get our house in order. In the past 2 years alone, this Federal Government has borrowed an additional $3.2 trillion. Washington passed a health care reform bill that cost nearly $2.6 trillion and a stimulus bill that cost $821 billion, which has only given us higher unemployment since the stimulus bill passed. The U.S. economy is frozen, job creators are facing new levels of taxes, they are looking at this health insurance cost going up and, on top of that, new regulations. Heavyhanded government regulation is not what we need right now. The health care reform bill is a perfect example of government regulations hamstringing our businesses with more redtape and bureaucracy. It has been over a year since that bill was passed, and businesses are still facing unprecedented premium increases--as high as 20 percent. Employers are finding their policies being canceled because insurers are closing up shop due to new Federal regulations. Health care reform is requiring individuals and businesses to buy government-approved health care or they pay hefty fines. Health reform has discouraged businesses from hiring, because if you go over 50 employees, new Federal regulations that will be imposed on you are going to be costly. A new study out this week confirms that health reform will not let you keep your health plan, as promised. This report found that when businesses fully understand all the new regulations required under health reform, as many as half of them say they will definitely or probably stop offering health insurance benefits to their employees. That would leave as many as 78 million Americans on their own to find health insurance for themselves and their families. That is why I have filed amendment No. 423--to delay further implementation of health reform until the courts determine whether it is constitutional. My amendment would pause further implementation of this law so we don't spend millions more taxpayer dollars at the Federal and State levels, costing small businesses as well, when it could be struck down. Twenty-six States have joined together to sue the Federal Government, and a Florida district court found in favor of these 26 States, saying Congress had overstepped and overreached its authority and that mandating individuals to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional. The 11th Circuit Court, as I said earlier, is considering this case as we speak and we should not burden any further businesses, States and taxpayers who support the Federal Government until we know if this law is constitutional. Let us put in place a moratorium, a pause, so that no one gets penalized for not continuing the implementation process. That is what my amendment would do. Let's clarify, and then, if the law is constitutional, there is plenty of time to go forward. But if it isn't, as I hope is the case, we will be able to start all over. We would make health care more available and more affordable in this country without cutting Medicare, overburdening our taxpayers and businesses, and maybe even get our economy going and stop this rising unemployment we are seeing in our country right now. Nine percent unemployment is too high, and health care reform is a part of the problem that is causing it. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Amendments Nos. 417 and 418 En Bloc

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am submitting my views today about the need to enact a fiscally responsible federal budget for fiscal year 2012. The April 15 statutory deadline for Congress to complete its annual budget resolution was over a month ago. An annual budget resolution is essential for controlling spending, for guiding the annual appropriations process, and for setting national spending priorities. For the past 2 years, the Senate has failed to meet this critical deadline. During that time, the U.S. has borrowed an additional $3.2 trillion--more than $100 billion a month until the $14.29 trillion debt ceiling was reached on May 16. For the first 7 months of the 2011 fiscal year, the budget deficit was a record $871 billion--$71 billion higher than it was at the same point in fiscal year 2010. During the same period, income tax revenues increased by $110 billion, or 9.1 percent. The problem isn't that Americans are taxed too little; Federal deficits are out-of-control because government is spending too much. Not passing a budget, not bringing forward even a budget proposal, takes us down a path that ends in Social Security and Medicare bankruptcy, harms our national security, and passes the bill for current fiscal irresponsibility onto our children and grandchildren. We are just 4\1/2\ months from the beginning of fiscal year 2012. Unless we pass a budget and approve the individual spending measures that are required to fund government operations, we will return to stopgap continuing resolutions and to recurring threat of government shutdowns. Yesterday, I joined all 46 of my Republican colleagues in a letter to the Senate majority leader that urges him to initiate the steps that must be taken for the Senate to debate, vote, and produce a responsible Federal budget for the next fiscal year. As the majority leader knows, the procedural votes he has scheduled will not advance us toward that goal. These votes are intended only to score political points. Today I will be in Dallas to attend my daughter's graduation from lower school to middle school. This will prevent me from being present for votes on the motions to proceed on four budget proposals. My absence for these procedural votes will not affect the outcomes. But I wanted to make known my position in advance of these votes. A serious attempt to move a fiscal year 2012 budget forward would be a bipartisan effort that would enable us to debate, amend, and move forward a plan for long-term deficit reduction, while funding essential government programs and services. I look forward to a real debate, open amendments, and a vote on a serious budget that will dramatically bring down the outstanding debt our country has accumulated. Unfortunately, that opportunity is not going to be presented to the Senate today. I would vote in favor of the motions to proceed on the three Republican-originated budget proposals before the Senate: the so-called Ryan budget that has been approved by the House of Representatives, as well as alternative plans put forward by Senator Toomey and Senator Paul. Each of these proposals would put the Federal Government on a multiyear glide path to a balanced Federal budget. Each proposal would go about achieving this crucial goal by reducing Federal spending, not by raising taxes, and could be a constructive starting point for Senate debate and consideration of amendments. I do not agree with parts of each proposal. But if we had an open amendment process we could attempt to improve each proposal, while preserving the best parts. I could not vote for the motion to proceed to consideration of the President's fiscal year 2012 budget. Unlike the Republican proposals, the President's fiscal year 2012 budget proposes to add $8.7 trillion in new spending and $1.26 trillion in net new taxes over the next decade, while only projecting $1.1 trillion in savings over 10 years. Rather than balancing the Federal budget, the President's budget plan would add several trillion dollars more to the national debt. That would be a catastrophe by any standard. But the reality of the President's budget would be much worse. In the President's budget a $1.1 trillion deficit was projected for the current fiscal year. But we are instead headed for a $1.4 trillion shortfall. The President subsequently signaled understanding that his proposed budget falls short by releasing a new deficit reduction proposal on April 13. The President's new plan targets $4 trillion in deficit reduction in 12 years--through tax increases and a new ``debt failsafe'' trigger that would include cuts to spending through the tax code--a new euphemism for tax increases. It is our responsibility to the country to act on establishing constraints on federal spending and producing a budget blueprint. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen not to prepare nor advance a fiscal year 2012 budget resolution forward, except to say repeatedly that higher taxes are essential. In my estimation, raising taxes in a struggling economy will stifle job creation and further delay recovery from a devastating, long-lasting recession. We must make bold cuts in spending where we can. We should also take steps to assure the long-term safety and soundness of Social Security and Medicare, for current retirees and for today's workers who will need to depend on benefits later. We must also carefully prioritize investment and research in areas of strategic national importance. Just as American families and small businesses across the Nation set their spending priorities so Congress is expected to do the same. As a nation, we have reached a serious, fiscal crisis. It is time to start making the necessary and difficult decisions for the future of our country. H. Con. Res. 34

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of Senator McConnell's production bill. The bill might be too much for some, too little for some, and maybe it is not perfect, but we must take a step in the direction of adding production of our Nation's natural resources if we are going to bring down the cost of gasoline, bring down the cost of fuel, bring down the cost of all the elements we have that are providing for our electricity, natural gas, and other forms of energy. I hope we can pass Senator McConnell's bill. Oil is, today, slightly under $100 per barrel, and with the summer driving season approaching, we know the price could go up. It is graduation season and people are driving to their graduation ceremonies, and they are having to pay these enormous prices at the pump. It is over $4 in many places. I recently read a story about a constituent who was going to College Station for a Texas A&M graduation, and he complained, rightfully, that he had a diesel truck and it cost him $74.41 to get his truck half full. That is a lot for a half tank of fuel. I think we can do something about it. Over the past 2 years, the Obama administration has put up barriers to increasing our domestic energy potential. We must stop that policy and go in the other direction and open our natural resources and use our natural resources, so we can bring down the cost of fuel and try to help our small businesses and families by providing opportunities to lower fuel. The McConnell legislation gets the ball rolling. Supporters of the bill agree that long-term energy solutions involve removing the anti- energy barriers to safely produce energy for Americans by Americans. On March 30, the President stated that producing more oil in America can help lower oil prices, create jobs, and enhance our energy security. But what is happening is our regulatory agencies are going in the opposite direction. They are stopping the production of oil and gas in our country. Let me read excerpts from a FOX News article, by Dan Springer, in April of this year: Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. . . . Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. . . . The closest village to where Shell proposed to drill is Kaktovik, Alaska. It is one of the most remote places in the United States. According to the latest census, the population is 245, and nearly all of them are Alaska natives. The village, which is 1 square mile, sits right along the shores of the Beaufort Sea, 70 miles away from the proposed offshore drill site. The EPA's appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. . . . At stake is an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil. That's how much the U.S. Geological Survey believes is in the U.S. portion of the Arctic Ocean. For perspective, that represents two and a half times more oil than has flowed down the Trans Alaska Pipeline throughout its 30-year history. The pipeline is getting dangerously low on oil. At 660,000 barrels a day, it's carrying only one-third of its capacity. So we hear what the President is saying, but his own agencies are going in the opposite direction. Here is another example: We are approaching June. The Department of the Interior has not conducted an offshore lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico. Lease sales usually occur twice a year. If a lease sale doesn't occur by the end of the year, 2011 would be the first year since 1958 which we have not conducted an offshore lease sale. Because of the President's moratorium and lack of permitting in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore energy production is expected to decrease by 13 percent in 2011. Senator McConnell's bill addresses the need for increased domestic production by reinstating the oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and the Atlantic, which President Obama canceled. This legislation also tackles the permitting delays companies in the gulf have experienced. Since October, the Department of the Interior has only issued 53 shallow water permits and 14 deepwater permits. The monthly approval rate before the moratorium was approximately 10 shallow water and 8 deepwater permits. This legislation eliminates the bureaucratic delays which have burdened operators and have taken away their ability to raise capital to do the exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. In the bill, it says the Department of the Interior will approve or reject permit applications within 30 days. It doesn't require approval of every application, but it puts a limit of 30 days on the approval process, so people will not be hung out, as they have been since last October. They are still paying the costs, but they cannot explore. So they are sitting idle. This has caused the bankruptcy of at least one company I know in Texas, Seahawk Drilling. This is not good policy when we are talking, as the President is, about increasing production in our country and then doing the opposite by enacting proposals that do not make sense, such as a moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico. On March 9 of this year, Senator Landrieu and I introduced S. 516, the Lease Extension and Security Act, known as the LEASE Act. All this does is simply extend for 1 year the leases that have had a moratorium, but the people are still paying the costs of those leases when they have been prohibited from using them. The leaseholder continues to pay the Treasury for all expenses associated with maintaining a lease, but they have been prohibited from exploring the lands the lease is on. It is very important that we pass this legislation. In the bill before us, the McConnell bill, we have a variation of the LEASE Act. It extends the leases for those that are going to come to an end at the end of this year. If they come to an end at the end of this year, they will get a 1-year lease. That is a right step in the right direction. Senator Landrieu and I believe every leaseholder--even if their lease does not run out this year--should have the full opportunity for their lease exploration capabilities in order to make it fair for the price they have paid in the open bidding process for those leases. The President has said he approves the extension of some leases. We agree. Why not all of them? They have been paid for. In many instances, the companies are still paying the employees, even though the employees are not able to do the work. This year alone, over 350 leases will expire and many of them are in moratorium. The bill before us would help those people to use the next year for determining if it is worth drilling for more of the oil on the leases they have purchased. I think it is very important that we pass this legislation that we will vote on very shortly today if we are serious about increasing the production of our own natural resources for the benefit of our people. It seems to me we need to back up the words of the President with actions that will be positive, proactive, and productive in getting the price of gasoline down at the pump. If we can start now, I hope the President would take some of the steps, for instance, to allow Shell, with the investment it has made, to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean. That is a place where there are vast reserves that have not been tapped. The people of Alaska support it. If we would use our natural resources, we could put people in America to work. We could stop the heavy importation of foreign oil, which is what we depend on now for over 50 percent of our fuel, and certainly we would like to add to our economy in this precarious economic time. We can do it with our own natural resources. I urge my colleagues to vote for the McConnell bill, and maybe then we can open it for amendments and get started in doing the right thing for our country.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the Menendez proposal which would raise taxes on a handful of our Nation's energy producers. This bill makes the assumption that raising taxes on the five major oil companies will somehow reduce the deficit and lower the price at the pump. This is misguided and it will also have the opposite effect. Raising taxes on our domestic oil industry will drive up gasoline prices and who in America driving a truck or a car doesn't realize that gasoline prices are already very high? Second, it will threaten the jobs, 9 million jobs dependent on drilling, exploration, and operating in America. If we drive these companies overseas, it will increase foreign imports and it will stop jobs being created in America. Those who threaten to repeal these deductions fail to recognize the tremendous costs and risks that go into exploring for the energy needed to drive our country forward. Our oil and gas industry is a business or industry that creates jobs like any other business or industry in our country. Why would we single out one sector of our economy and say you can't deduct your expenses? Every other business in America can deduct expenses. Other manufacturing businesses in America can get the tax credits for manufacturing jobs because we want to keep jobs in America and it offsets the very high corporate tax rate that we have in our country, that the President has recognized as being too high. Because we want to keep manufacturing jobs, there is a credit for manufacturing. But we are going to take that away if the Menendez bill passes, and send those jobs overseas. We are making it so hard to create our own natural resources from our own people working in this country, instead sending jobs overseas. At a time when we ought to be helping to create jobs, when we ought to give every possible fair break to companies that will hire in America, now we are going to take one sector of our industry and tax it differently from every other sector. Since business started in our country we have had tax deductions for expenses. Yet here we are trying to say we are going to take one sector of our industry--maybe they are doing too well right now--and we are going to tax them more. Look out, other industries that happen to be successful right now; whether you are making Kleenex or computers, you are going to be taxed if you earn too much. Is that what America wants to change to, as our business policy, which has a foundation of fairness and equity? We have a corporate tax rate that is so high it encourages businesses to go overseas. Now we are going to single out one industry that wants to do work in America, that wants to bring our natural resources out of the ground and bring down the price at the pump. But, no, we are going to add taxes so we will not see any lowering of gasoline prices at the pump. Instead, we are going to increase it. If we increase the cost of doing business and we force these companies to go overseas to get fair and stable regulatory environment, then we are going to pay more at the pump. There is no doubt about it. Senator Landrieu and I introduced bipartisan legislation earlier this year called S. 516, the Lease Extension and Secure Energy Act of 2011, known as LEASE. It restores time lost as a result of the offshore moratoria by extending the impacted leases by 1 year. It is fair and it is simple. Over the weekend, the President stated he would be extending leases in the Gulf of Mexico that were affected by the moratorium, but he was not clear about which ones. He didn't say I will extend every lease that went through the processes to get the environmental and the safety restrictions in place. They got the lease. Then they had a moratorium. So they are paying people, they are continuing to have all of the expenses of the lease but they do not get to do the exploration. We are saying whether you were in the exploration phase or in the drilling phase it doesn't matter. If you are impacted by a moratorium on a lease that you are still paying for and you are still paying people to try to keep people on the payroll, your lease will be extended for 1 year. That is all the bill Senator Landrieu and I submitted will do. The Secretary of the Interior, at a hearing this morning in the Senate, said they were looking into extending Gulf of Mexico ``wells'' directly impacted by the moratorium--meaning only those leaseholders who have already performed all seismic tests and were conducting exploration drilling. This will only cover 33 leases out of thousands that are still affected by the moratorium, because they are in the exploratory phase, not the exploratory drilling phase. This year alone, over 350 leases are due to expire. Many of them have not had the opportunity to be developed because of the moratorium. The development of oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico is an extremely expensive and technical process. It takes about 3 years of tests, surveys, and appraisals before even drilling for the exploration well. Regardless of which stage all of the exploration leaseholders are in, the administration ordered all leaseholders to halt exploration activities when its moratorium was enacted. Every one of those leases is still being paid for but they are not able to be explored. We need to restore at least 1 year of the moratorium so they get fairness for the money they have spent and also for the people they have kept hired, not sending them away--which has been a hardship on many companies, including some having to go bankrupt because they could not afford to be idle while they also were meeting a payroll. The exploration and development of oil and gas must follow a meticulous process, and any delay such as a moratorium can derail an exploration plan causing companies to have to give up on their leases. The length of deepwater offshore leases is usually about 10 years because that is what it takes to get all the way through the exploration and the exploration drilling phase to determine if it is worth actually drilling. Many times when you drill, you get a dry well. Our commonsense legislation has bipartisan support. Recently, the Office of Management and Budget stated, ``The administration fully supports suspensions for Gulf of Mexico leaseholders directly impacted by the drilling moratorium,'' but the administration fails to recognize that all leaseholders in the Gulf of Mexico were ``directly impacted by the drilling moratorium.'' James Noe, the executive director of the Shallow Water Energy Security Coalition, wrote me to express his support for the LEASE Act. In the letter, he said: Without the LEASE Act, vast quantities of proven, present and producible oil and gas in these expiring leases will be trapped. Leaving the resources trapped will hurt our domestic production and delay when these resources can come online. I received another letter from Stephen Heitzman, the president and CEO of Phoenix Exploration, a small Houston-based exploration company. Mr. Heitzman wrote that the LEASE Act is vital to Phoenix Exploration and other small offshore companies because they have been prevented by the administration from drilling in the moratorium and have not been able to even evaluate many of their Gulf of Mexico leases which have been fully paid for through the competitive bidding process. He goes on to say the time lost from the moratorium makes it very difficult for shallow water independent operators to put together the partnerships and attract sufficient capital resources needed to develop leases. The LEASE Act is needed to give offshore energy producers the certainty they need to obtain proper financing to produce domestic oil and gas. I ask unanimous consent that the letters I have read excerpts from be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me close by saying I hope we will not do something so wrongheaded and counterintuitive as to take one section of an industry and say you are bigger than all the others, so we are going to tax you differently. We are not going to give you the manufacturing tax credits we give to every other manufacturer in the world, including the big ones that manufacture in the United States, and we are also going to tax you differently from the smaller oil and gas companies because you are big and they are small. Is that America? Is that the country that wrote a Constitution that said we would guarantee due process of law, that we wouldn't single out one company that is bigger than the others and tax it differently? That is not what our country was founded on. We should have a fair process. We should have fair taxation. We should be encouraging manufacturing in our country because these companies have a trust with their shareholders. We expect them to do well for their shareholders, and they have millions of shareholders who depend on them to do the right thing with their business and with the investment these shareholders have made. I might add that many pensions are dependent on these kinds of stocks, and it is expected the CEOs will run the companies in a way that will keep our economy going, keep jobs in America, and keep their stockholders in a position where retirees can live on the income. We are singling out an industry and saying: No, you are too big, so you are going to be taxed differently from other industries, and you don't get the manufacturing incentives that even other big manufacturers get. Why wouldn't they move overseas to create jobs overseas where they have a stable regulatory environment, a lower tax base, a lower tax rate, and where they can bring up oil from the ground and import it right back into America, even though it will be at a higher price because we are going to have to pay for the people to go overseas and haul the oil back. Does that make sense? It doesn't make good business sense, and it certainly doesn't make good economic sense. It is not good for our country, and it is certainly not good for the job market we are trying to build. I hope we will not make the mistake of going forward on the Menendez bill. I hope we will realize we are a country that has vast natural resources and we should be using those resources so our businesses can thrive, so prices stay low, so people will not be strained to put gasoline in their trucks to go to work or to do their farming or ranching to contribute back to the economy. I hope we will defeat the Menendez bill, and I hope we will adopt a policy that will come through the McConnell bill tomorrow which will increase exploration, increase production, and lower the price of gasoline through our own natural resources, not by importing our own--the jobs that ought to be in America, exporting the jobs and importing the product. That doesn't make sense. Let's keep the jobs in America and let's keep our natural resources working for us. That would be the prudent thing to do and that will be the McConnell bill. I hope we can defeat the Menendez bill, and maybe we can come together in the Senate and give the President a bill that will ask that we have more production and give the level playing field to all the companies that would hire more people and create jobs in America. They will do it if there is a level and fair and stable regulatory and tax environment in America. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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