Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Michigan. I think we can do this together if we will come together and focus on those great young men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq serving right now and do something that is right for them regardless of whether we have to face a government shutdown for all the rest of us.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will say that makes our 46th cosponsor of S. 724. It is a very simple bill. It just says if there is a government shutdown, the military will be paid. The Secretary of Defense will have the discretion to also pay the civilians and those who are serving our military so the food service in Afghanistan and Iraq will not be stopped because we have a government shutdown and the paychecks are not going to come. I want to alleviate any fear on the part of any member of our military or one whose family is watching the debate on the House and the Senate floor, watching this play out and thinking: Am I going to be able to pay the mortgage on time? I want to alleviate that fear right now. I hope we will be able to pass this bill that is gaining sponsors about every 15 minutes, as people start looking at the looming shutdown of government that will happen a little later than this tomorrow night if we do not have an agreement. I think all of us should put our military in the front of the line and say: They are going to show up for work. Let's assure them their pay will not be delayed. That is not the message they are getting right now, but I think we can assure they will get it. I have a letter we just received from the National Association of Uniformed Services, which says: On behalf of the more than 180,000 members and supporters of the National Association for Uniformed Services, I offer our full support for your legislation, S. 724, the Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I hope we come to agreement and do not shut down the government. We are so close to getting this temporary fiscal year--which we are already halfway through--finished, and let's take this off the books. What we ought to be doing right now is focusing on the 2012 budget that starts October 1, where we are having our hearings, and we are asking our questions, and we are trying to set our priorities with a lower scale of government. We are going to cut back way below what we spent last year and the year before, but we are going to prioritize our spending. We had FBI Director Mueller testify before our Commerce-Justice Subcommittee of Appropriations to talk about the law enforcement needs of our FBI. I want to spend my time talking about the needs of the FBI and the other necessary functions of government; certainly, our armed services bill. I do not want to be talking about shutting down government in the middle of the fiscal year because we are not coming together on $6 billion or $3 billion--I don't know exactly where they are now, but it is not very much in the scheme of things. What we need to do is get this behind us, alleviate the fears of our military personnel, alleviate the fears of their families that they might have a hiatus in their paychecks. We need to start thinking about the big picture, the big picture of what we must focus on, which is cutting spending so we can go toward a balanced budget and agree on a 5- to 10-year trajectory that will put us back in a fiscally responsible position for our country to have the credibility in the world we should have, for our children to be free of the debt for what we have used in government in this country. We don't need to pass that debt to our children if we are responsible stewards of both their lives and our taxpayer dollars. We need to be the leaders that people expect us to be. The people spoke in very loud terms last November, that they do not want more spending. I hear it everywhere I go. I hear it in the airports, on the streets, when I am talking to people in informal meetings, the grocery store--people are scared to death of a $14 trillion debt. It has never been so high in our country before. I don't want that to be the legacy of this Congress and our generation. That is not the legacy we should have as leaders of the greatest country in the free world. I implore the leaders of Congress and the President to get the continuing resolution behind us so we can focus on the big picture; that is, the $14 trillion debt that we are facing right now and doing the responsible cutting that will begin to cut back on the deficits, take down the debt, and address the issues that have not been addressed for all these years, once and for all. I yield 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, I wanted to speak on the McConnell amendment that Senator Inhofe has worked so hard to bring up, and also Lisa Murkowski from Alaska. We all know what is happening to gasoline prices in the United States right now. They have gone up now and the average is about $3.60 a gallon. What we are looking at are more increases in those gasoline prices if the EPA is allowed to take an authority it does not have and regulate greenhouse gasses. Some of the other amendments offered on this subject are well intentioned, but they do fall short of actually making a difference. The amendment before us repeals EPA's effort. It is very simple and very clean. Small businesses are struggling to survive, struggling to keep workers, and trying to make it in very small margins in this economic time. Families are facing higher energy costs. We are all suffering. I have a pickup truck which I love to drive. I filled it up a couple of weekends ago. It was about $60. That is a pickup truck. That is a basic form of transportation for many Americans. Farmers depend on affordable energy prices. They must put gasoline in their trucks, diesel in their harvesters, use energy-intensive fertilizer. Higher costs for farmers means higher costs for food. You are talking about now an inflation we cannot afford in this kind of economic environment. During all of this, the EPA now wants to impose a new gas tax on America in the form of greenhouse gas regulation. Last Congress I issued a report that documented how the Kerry- Lieberman climate legislation would impose a $3.6 trillion gas tax on the American people. Using the data from EPA and the Energy Information Administration, we calculated that climate legislation would impose a $2 trillion gasoline tax, a $1.3 trillion diesel fuel tax, and a $330 billion jet fuel tax. According to the EPA and the senior Obama administration officials, regulations would be even worse than legislation. That was one of the main arguments they used in support of climate legislation, that the regulations would be even worse than cap-and-trade legislation. But that is exactly what we are getting with the EPA now trying to regulate what we could not pass in the legislature, for good reason. The Baucus amendment could shield small businesses and farmers from EPA permit requirements, but it codifies the requirements for energy and fuel producers, meaning everyone in America will still pay higher energy prices. The Stabenow and Rockefeller amendment only delays the higher energy costs and job losses for 2 years. That is not good enough. I hope my colleagues will see that this is our time to tell the EPA we will determine what we want them to regulate. That is the responsibility of the Congress. We are to make the laws, they are to implement them. They are not to reinvent them in their own model of what they have the authority to do, and we have not given them the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. The refineries say this added amount of regulation is going to cost so much that they will have to raise their prices in their factories, and that assuredly will raise the price of oil and gasoline through its use in our country. This is an amendment. There is only one amendment of all the amendments on this subject that will do the job. It is simple and clear. It would eliminate the EPA's ability to make regulations in an area that Congress has not authorized it to do. That is what we need to do. Congress needs to take the reins and halt the overregulation that is hurting our small businesses and hurting our economic recovery. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the McConnell-Inhofe- Murkowski amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I wish to speak about the urgent fiscal crisis that is facing our Nation. We know the Congress right now is in negotiation for a resolution that will take us until the end of the fiscal year, and it is in an atmosphere in which so many people are worried about our overwhelming debt and the deficit that would be in the budget that was submitted by the President. We now are trying to cut that budget responsibly. The United States is averaging $4 billion a day in debt. A $1.6 trillion deficit is projected by the end of this year. That is just the deficit. That is adding to the debt. Federal spending in 2010 was 23.8 percent of gross domestic product. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, predicts it will be 24.7 percent of GDP in 2011. As a nation, we must remain competitive by reducing Federal spending and spurring economic growth in the private sector. It is jobs in the private sector that will take our economy out of the doldrums where it is now. For the sake of the American people, I hope we can come together to stop the reckless Federal spending. Continuing the spending, the borrowing, and the taxing in Washington will halt job creation and triple the debt by the end of this decade. That is what is predicted. We must make bold cuts where we can by carefully also prioritizing investment in areas of strategic national importance. What we need now is for the President, the Senate majority leader, and the House Speaker to sit in a room and not come out until a deal is made that has the votes to pass. I do not want a government shutdown. The consequence of a government shutdown will be enormous, and so many people who are talking about that as an option, as if it is not a big deal, just do not realize how many lives it will touch and how hard it is going to make life for so many people--people who have depended on benefits, such as veterans. We do not know what will happen in a government shutdown. We do not know what will happen to our military because that is not clear. That is what I want to talk about today. A government shutdown will put people in peril in many areas, but now we have a situation in which our military, our Active-Duty military-- almost 90,000 are in Afghanistan, 47,000 in Iraq--is put in a position today of now also wondering if their spouses at home with children are going to get their paychecks. If we have a government shutdown that will affect their ability to pay their mortgages. Madam President, let me ask, are there time limits in place?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President. Let me just say that I have introduced legislation. I have cosponsors--Casey, Inhofe, Snowe, Murkowski, Collins, Ayotte, and Hoeven. It is the Ensuring Pay for our Military Act of 2011. It is very simple. It just ensures that in the event of a Federal Government shutdown--which I do not want to happen and do not support-- our military will be paid. It also will allow anyone who is serving our military--civilian defense employees or contractors who do the food services--to also be able to go to work and not have to worry about what is going to be happening back home, especially for those who are serving in harsh conditions overseas. I so hope we will be able to pass this bill. I do not want 1 more minute of stress on our military. The bill is very simple, and it is very short and very clear: Our military personnel and their support will not be affected by a government shutdown. I hope I can have more colleagues signing up. We have introduced this bill, S. 724, and I hope we can get a vote on this bill in very short order so this is off the table. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, something happened last night, and I feel compelled to say on the floor of the Senate that I am very proud of the Texas Aggies women who won the NCAA national basketball championship. It is so important, I want to say a couple of words about that, because this is the first national championship that the Lady Aggies have ever won. It was a great game last night. I certainly congratulate the Notre Dame Fighting Irish as well. But the Texas Aggies played with spirit. They came from behind at the half, and 76 to 70, they defeated Notre Dame. I congratulate the Texas Aggie ladies, but I also want to say that Texas A&M's coach, Gary Blair, became the oldest coach to ever win a national women's championship. He has turned the Lady Aggies basketball team into this national championship team. I mention Danielle Adams. Her All American performance last night was incredible. It is a great day. I am a Texas Longhorn, and most days I am for all of our Texas teams, and I love to say ``Gig `Em Aggies.'' There is one day that I cannot say that. That is Thanksgiving Day. But 364 days a year, I am all for the Aggies when they are playing. And when they played like they did last night in any sport, all America should recognize it. With that, I wish to say that my colleague Senator Cornyn and I are going to ask unanimous consent to offer a resolution congratulating the Lady Aggies of Texas A&M on winning the 2011 National Collegiate Athletic Association women's basketball championship.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, Dr. James Parkinson first identified the symptoms of this debilitating disease in 1817, and now an estimated 1.5 million Americans are currently living with Parkinson's. Despite major advances in modern technology and the establishment of the Parkinson's Disease Research Agenda more than 10 years ago, we regrettably still do not know the cause, and we are still looking for a cure. Parkinson's disease is a degenerative brain disorder with major symptoms such as tremors, trouble walking, and speech difficulties. The number of people being diagnosed with Parkinson's continues to rise. The newest treatments are coming from cutting edge medical innovations, like deep brain stimulation. However, we can and must do more to keep pushing the boundaries to find better therapies and hopefully, very soon, a cure. This requires a continued national commitment to biomedical research. The National Institutes of Health is the largest contributor to Parkinson's research, along with the Department of Veteran Affairs and the Department of Defense. Texas has committed to leading the way in Parkinson's disease research and has received more than $2.7 million in Federal funds. These dollars are being put to use at some of our top university and medical research facilities across the State, including: the University of Texas, Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Science Center, and the Audie L. Murphy VA Medical Center in San Antonio. Today, I am proud to recognize April as Parkinson's Awareness Month, and I hope that this will not only raise awareness of this devastating disease, but will also renew focus and vigor to the fight to treat and ultimately eliminate Parkinson's disease.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I certainly appreciate what Dr./ Senator Barrasso, from Wyoming, does for us on a regular basis. As one of the few physicians in our body--he is one of the two--he tells us the things that are happening in this health care reform bill that are hurting our health care system, hurting the quality of health care in our country, at a time when we need to assure senior citizens that Medicare cuts will not take effect. We certainly want our small businesses to hire people rather than stop at 50 because then they are going to start getting fined for not giving the government-prescribed health care that is in the health care reform act that was passed last year. What I am doing in my amendment, as one of those pending in the bill before us, is saying: Stop. We have now had two Federal courts--one from Virginia, one from Florida--that have said this law is unconstitutional. Yet the administration is continuing to implement the law, even though it has certainly now been called into question. I am most affected by the number of States that are having to do the same thing. Most of our State legislatures are in session right now. Every one of them--actually, I think approximately 44 States out of 50--has a budget shortfall. Yet our States are having to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to implement a law that may be declared unconstitutional. Some States have said we are not going to implement it. But if they say that, then they are going to be in jeopardy when they are not prepared, if the law is constitutional, and they will be paying late fees and fines for not implementing during this kind of time when we are in limbo. Some States are saying we are going to implement, but we have a budget shortfall and we would like not to be required to implement a law that may be void and we are spending millions of dollars when we need that money for education or Medicaid, frankly. My amendment says we will stop any further implementation of this law until we know the final opinion has been rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether the law is valid. That is it. It is simple and clear. We will let every State know they have a level playing field, that they do not have to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars now being spent on implementation, unless we know the Supreme Court has said the law is valid. I have 36 cosponsors of my amendment, including the Senator from Wyoming, who is one of our two physicians in the Senate. I think we will have a large support because I am getting letters from organizations. I got a letter from a group that has been formed to say we need to start over on this health care reform bill. These are people who represent the employers of America that want to be able to give their employees the health care coverage they can afford right now. It may not be the government-prescribed health care, but many are trying to do it. The groups that have signed this letter supporting my amendment to say stop implementation now are: The Associated Builders and Contractors, the Associated General Contractors, the Electrical Contractors, the Foodservice Distributors Association, the International Franchises Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, the National Retail Federation, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Independent Women's Voice, and the 60 Plus Association. Those are the groups that are saying let's stop the upheaval this has caused in our country and wait and see what the Supreme Court says before we have the outlays of millions of dollars. Most certainly, small businesses are not increasing employment because they are so concerned about the implications of the health care reform bill. Let me give the Senator from Wyoming an example from my home State of Texas, in Corpus Christi. A small business there has 34 employees. The cheapest option they have for their health insurance renewal is 44 percent more than their insurance just last year. They have just days to decide whether they can continue to offer their employees health insurance. This is in anticipation of the health care reform bill going into effect and causing these employers to have to meet these new mandates. The insurance companies are already ratcheting up their insurance premiums in anticipation of this law. This is one of the key reasons we need to stop the implementation, until we know if this law is valid, so our businesses will have the freedom to provide affordable health care coverage to their employees. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for coming in with his second opinion because we know he has unique experience in working with our health care system. I wish to make sure we don't do what the physicians' motto is--which is do no harm--when we haven't thought it through and don't have all the ramifications. First, do no harm. That is their motto. It is simple and clear. I think we need to stop implementing this bill until the Supreme Court has ruled on its constitutionality.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Boxer. Mr. President, I do want to talk about this remarkable woman because I think, as has been mentioned before, her loss is being felt throughout America for many different reasons. She was a trailblazer, and she was one of the great female role models of her generation. I wrote a book in 2004 called ``American Heroines: The Spirited Women Who Shaped Our Country.'' It was to profile the women who were the earliest trailblazers in different fields--education, sports, politics, journalism. Then I interviewed contemporary women who were still breaking barriers in those fields. In the public service chapter, I profiled Margaret Chase Smith because she was the longest serving woman elected to the Senate in her own right at the time and she was a true trailblazer. I then interviewed Sandra Day O'Connor, our first woman Supreme Court Justice, and Geraldine Ferraro, our first woman nominee for Vice President of a major party. I asked Gerry Ferraro in my interview with her: What was your most important trait for success? And she said: I think the ability to work hard and, if something doesn't work, to learn from the mistake and move on. That's what's happened with my own life. It goes to the personal side from watching my mother, who moved on after becoming a widow with two kids to support. She was thirty-nine years old. . . . Then I watched her move on and do whatever was necessary to get the job of educating her children done. I'm exactly the same way. I'll do whatever is necessary to get the job done, whatever it is. And then if I do something that doesn't work, then I go to the next goal. I asked her what was her biggest obstacle. She almost laughed. She said: I'm sixty-eight. The obstacles in my life have changed with time. An obstacle when I was a kid was being in a boarding school away from my mother because my father had died. I had no choice. It wasn't like the boarding schools or the prep schools of today. I was in a semicloistered convent. It was lonely, and I had to work hard. I wanted to go to college, but we didn't have the money for college, so I knew I had to get top marks in order to get scholarships. That was my obstacle then. Money was always an obstacle when I was a kid. I taught when I went to law school at night, because I couldn't afford to go during the day. When I applied [for law school], they would say things like, ``Gerry, are you serious, because you're taking a man's place,'' you know. . . . And then [after getting out of law school]-- As was mentioned earlier, she was one of only two women in her class-- I was faced with the challenge of trying to find a job. I interviewed at five law firms. I was in the top ten percent of my class. But she did not get a job offer. Well, I related to that because I graduated from law school, after her, in 1967, and law firms in Texas did not hire women then either. So I know how she felt as she went through obstacles and obstacles and obstacles. But she said: In the end, ``each thing was an obstacle that I had to get by'' at the time. But she didn't have too many obstacles because she just picked herself up and kept right on going. She truly was an inspiration and a trailblazer for women of our time. Throughout her life as a public school teacher, as an assistant district attorney, as a Congresswoman, and as a candidate for Vice President, Gerry Ferraro fought for the causes that were important to her. When she learned she had multiple myeloma, a somewhat rare blood disease that is incurable, she drew upon that same fighting spirit. As she waged the battle with her own disease, Gerry stepped into the spotlight because she knew if she talked about it, with her high profile, she could bring help to others. Her testimony before Congress was instrumental in the passage of a bill that Senator Mikulski, who is on the floor leading this effort today, and I cosponsored together in 2001 and 2002. Our legislation gave the research community the tools they need to discover what triggers these deadly blood diseases, to devise better treatments, and to work toward a cure. In our bill, Barbara and I decided to name the Geraldine Ferraro Blood Cancer Education Program for Gerry Ferraro to raise awareness and spread the lifesaving information about myeloma, leukemia, and other forms of blood cancer. Gerry Ferraro was on the floor of the House when her bill--our bill--passed the House of Representatives on April 30, 2002. Her daughter was in the gallery with my staffer, and there was so much joy in her eyes and her demeanor. But then Gerry Ferraro went about the business of fashioning the education program. She consulted with the doctors at Harvard, at Dana- Farber, with Dr. Ken Anderson, her doctor. She consulted with him because she wanted an interactive Web site because she knew that doctors all over the country were searching for information on the treatment of this disease because they were so unaware at the time of what you could do to help patients. Well, this is personal to me because my brother Allan also has multiple myeloma, and I got involved in this because I watched him bravely fight like Gerry Ferraro was doing. And my brother is a great patient. He is tough like Gerry. He is fighting like Gerry. And he is doing really well. But we knew how hard it was because we watched Allan fight this disease and take many of the same drugs and have the same doctor consultations as Gerry. So Gerry and Allan knew each other and traded information, and the patients with these diseases do that. They reach out, they help each other because they know it is the person with the experience who knows how you feel when you just don't feel as though you can get up in the morning. People such as Kathy Giusti, who was also a good friend of Gerry Ferraro's, and Ken Anderson, they traded information, and it helped all of them to know they had that kind of support. So she was an inspiration. Her dignity and grace in fighting multiple myeloma will be one of the trademarks in her life, along with the other great trailblazing she has done. Just last month, the women of the Senate pulled together to return the encouragement. We knew Gerry was having a hard time, and we took a picture of the women of the Senate, we all signed it around the edges and we sent it to her, saying: Thanks for being our champion. Thanks for all you do for the women of our country. Gerry was not just a champion for women running for public office, she was a champion for women to succeed in every field, in every sector. She took the first powerful swing at the glass ceiling. She will not be here to see the woman President who is sworn into office, who will finish the breaking of that glass ceiling. But we will all be standing on the shoulders of Gerry Ferraro, and certainly that first woman President will as well, because she took those first steps, such as so many of the early trailblazers in all the different sectors. The first ones don't see their success, but what they do by showing the dignity and the courage and the tenacity and the grace does prepare the way for the next generation or the next woman to move to the next level, and that is what Gerry Ferraro has done for all the women of our country. I will always remember her friendship. I appreciate her leadership. We will all miss her on a personal level, but we will always remember in the bigger picture what she did for this country. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Mikulski. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 197.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I do, Mr. President. I would like to have my amendment called up, then speak, and then I am happy to have the unanimous consent so that they know the order following me.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. For 10 minutes.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I do wish to thank the Senator from Louisiana, who is managing the bill for her side, for allowing us to go forward with amendments. I think that is very important, and I do have an amendment that I think will help our small businesses and our States throughout the country. The cosponsors to amendment No. 197 are Senators Hatch, Kyl, Barrasso, Burr, Johanns, Murkowski, Cochran, Moran, and Ensign. We are approaching the 1-year anniversary of health care reform becoming law, and it is important to highlight the reality of what this bill has done to every American family, every patient, every doctor, health care provider, and every small business in this country. One year later, the skyrocketing cost of health care is still the No. 1 concern among our Nation's job creators. Just today, my office heard from a small business in Corpus Christi, TX, that has 34 employees. This company has now gotten the bids for renewal of the policies they had before, and the cheapest option for their health insurance represents a 44-percent increase from last year's cost. They have until April 1 to decide whether to continue to offer their employees health insurance and to try to figure out how they are going to compensate for that increase in cost. But this isn't the first small business I have heard from that is telling me the same thing--that their premiums are coming up for renewal, they are getting bids, they are trying to get the best bid they possibly can, and the costs are skyrocketing. These price increases have not happened in a vacuum. They are the result of the 2,000-page, $2.6 trillion health care bill signed into law 1 year ago. One year after that bill was signed, small businesses are facing unprecedented premium increases. Their policies are being canceled as insurers close up shop because of new Federal regulations. The reality of the small business tax credits touted by the administration are really just an empty promise that a majority of small businesses will never see. In fact, the Obama administration estimated that by 2013 as many as 80 percent of small businesses will not even be offering their current health care plan anymore due to the new Federal regulations and mandates and the increasing costs, leaving the promise our President made--if you like what you have, you can keep it--as a distant memory. A former Director of the Congressional Budget Office has warned that health reform includes strong incentives for employers and employees to drop employer-sponsored health insurance for as many as 35 million Americans. A recent employer survey conducted by the National Business Group on Health reports that 81 percent of employers have experienced increased administrative burdens because of health reform. This same survey also reported that because of the increased cost from health reform, 68 percent of employers are increasing the contributions required for dependent insurance coverage. The Congressional Budget Office agrees and has reported that these increased burdens and mandates on employers will result in fewer jobs, as well as a shift from full-time to part- time jobs in our country. The Congressional Research Service adds that lower wages will also become a reality because of the new employer mandates. The only good news our small businesses have gotten recently on this health care reform bill is from the courts. Two Federal courts have found the law unconstitutional--one in Virginia and one in Florida. In January, the Florida judge voided the entire law because the Constitution doesn't allow Congress to force individuals, small businesses, or families to purchase anything just because you live in this country. That is why I am offering an amendment to S. 493, the small business innovation bill, that would delay any further implementation of health reform until the Supreme Court rules whether the law is actually a valid law. Included within the 2,000 pages of the law are provisions that harm small businesses, their employees, and families. The health reform law contains $500 billion in new taxes, cuts nearly $500 billion from Medicare to fund the new government entitlement, and puts the Federal Government between patients and their doctors. Health reform requires individuals and businesses to buy government-approved health care or have IRS agents knocking at their door. If business owners want to grow their business and hire new employees, health reform says: If you have over 50 employees, there will be costly new Federal regulations with which you have to comply. Small businesses across the country that now have 48 or 49 employees are facing a Federal mandate that discourages them from hiring more people. And this is occurring during one of the highest unemployment rates in our country's history. We need to get government off the backs of small businesses, our job creators, and stop putting up miles of redtape that restrict innovation. This bill is the perfect place to do it. My amendment would pause further implementation of this law so that we don't spend millions of our taxpayer dollars and our small business dollars implementing a bill that ultimately could be struck down by the highest Court in the land in a case that has already said the law is unconstitutional. It is making its way to the Supreme Court as we speak. In addition to the effects on the individuals and small businesses of our country, State legislators and Governors across our country are also making very tough decisions needed to close nearly $125 billion in budget shortfalls. They too are having to meet the Federal mandates of health care reform. Their Medicaid systems are being drastically impacted. Some States are saying, because of the Florida judge's ruling, they are not going to go further in implementing the law. They do not want to spend the millions if the law is going to be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. On the other hand, we are putting them in the position of taking a chance because there are fines if they do not implement the law in a timely way, according to the law that was passed. If they do not implement it, while the court has said the law is unconstitutional, they could pay, on the other end, by having fines because they did not implement it. My home State of Texas is going forward with implementation, but they are facing a $27 billion shortfall in their budget. Yet they are spending money that may be money down a rat hole to implement a law that may not be a valid law. Today we could take one Federal mandate off the list. Today we can make it easier for job creators to create jobs. The least we can do for the businesses and States and families in our country is to delay the burden, the mandates, the regulations and taxes until the highest Court in the land rules on whether it is a valid law. This amendment would not affect any of the law that has already been implemented. We are not doing something that is retroactive at all. But when this bill passes, everything going forward would be halted until the Supreme Court has ruled on whether, in fact, the health care law that was passed last year is a valid law. I ask my colleagues to join me in taking this heavy burden from our employers and our States. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to speak in favor of the McConnell amendment, which is the pending amendment, which the Senator from Louisiana is trying to get tagged for a vote. But I also wish to have the opportunity to support two of the amendments that I have offered--at least filed--and would like to have them pending as soon as the process allows. Let me just say that I do support the McConnell amendment. Let me be pretty clear and pretty simple. In the last session of Congress, Senator Lieberman and Senator Kerry offered a climate change regulation that would have caused our fuel prices to go up exponentially. Senator Bond and I did a study on the Kerry-Lieberman multitrillion-dollar tax bill that would have happened if Congress had passed their legislation. We estimated that it would have been about $3.6 trillion in total fuel- added expense to the small businesses and the families in this country. We have documented that in this report. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the executive summary of this report.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the reason we did not pass this legislation is everyone realized it would have raised the cost of gasoline. Now the EPA is trying to do the same thing by fiat. By executive fiat, they are trying to regulate greenhouse gases. What they are going to do is raise the cost of fuel at a time when people are suffering at the pump. I mentioned earlier that I filled up my pickup truck last weekend. It was almost $50. I know every American is having the same experience. If they have an SUV, it is even more. We cannot allow the EPA, through greenhouse gas regulations, to increase the cost of fuel when they put that regulation on a refinery. We have very few refineries. We have not built a new refinery in this country since 1973 because it is so regulated, so that we really have a shortage of refineries. It is one of the problems with the supply issue in providing gasoline at reasonable prices. We need to be stepping back, not stepping forward with more regulations. The EPA is doing something Congress would not do. Oddly, the EPA is not authorized to make regulations that Congress does not pass. They are to implement the law, not make it. But that is what they are doing, and we are trying to stop it with the McConnell amendment that would repeal the EPA greenhouse gas regulations. I hope my colleagues will support it. In addition, as a former small businessperson myself, I know it is very hard for small businesses to make ends meet. I have heard from so many of the people in Texas who are now trying to make ends meet and keep people employed in small businesses. This health care reform bill is causing them to not hire people because they do not know what the costs are going to be. Basically, you are going to be taxed if you are an individual or a small business that does not adopt the government-prescribed health care insurance for your employees or your family. That is the bottom line. If you do not do exactly what the government says and meet their government-required standards, even if the employees are happy with their health care coverage or certainly do not want to be left to the government health care, you will still get the fine. Most small businesses I talked to were saying: I am going to pay the fine. It is easier. I don't have liability. I don't have to hire people to work with my employees to get the best prices. That takes a lot of my time and it is not helpful to the bottom line of my company, and therefore I am just going to pay the fine and let the government do it. Health care is not going to improve for the small businesses and for the families in this country. My amendment, No. 197, that has been filed, which I hope to have pending, is called the SOS Act--Save Our States--meaning that while the Florida case that has said the health care reform law is unconstitutional is still unsettled, States and small businesses should not be spending the money to implement a law that may be thrown out anyway by the courts. Let's not cause the financially strapped States and small businesses in this country to have to spend the money to implement the health care reform bill until we know it really is the law of the land. Right now, that is a question because two courts have thrown it out as unconstitutional, one in Virginia and one in Florida. So my amendment, No. 197, will say that we will delay implementation. We will not require any costs to be incurred by a business, an individual, or a State until it is clear it has gone to the Supreme Court and the health care reform act really is the law of the land. How much could that save? Millions for our States and millions for the businesses across our country. I hope we can get this amendment pending. The second amendment is No. 198. It is called the Lease Act. It is simple. Today, we have a virtual moratorium. My colleague from Louisiana has designated what we have as a permitorium, because there is almost no activity--new activity--in the Gulf of Mexico in deepwater drilling activity. We know that gasoline at the pump is going up because there is a shortage of supply. If we would get these leases out there, all of the exploration that is being done, and allow the people who have paid the bonuses for the leases to fully use their leases, then we would give them 1 more year to be able to determine if it is worth it to drill a well in the Gulf of Mexico and start pumping oil and increase our supplies through our own natural resources that God has given to our country. Our amendment No. 198, which is the Hutchison-Landrieu bill, would extend for 1 year, which is the time these people have paid for a lease but not been able to use it, because there is a moratorium on the deepwater drilling, and the Department of Interior has now only given a maximum of up to three, possibly only two permits for the people who had been able to explore before the BP spill. I hope to get both of those amendments up. I can think of nothing that would help small business more than to know they will not have to implement the health care reform act, they can go ahead and hire people, free them to build up their employment base, which is what we all want to do, build our economy and, secondly, to hopefully get a better price on fuel for them so they will not have to suffer with these high gasoline prices. Most small businesses, in a poll, said their top three expenditures include the cost of fuel, electricity, and natural gas. So we need to give our small businesses help. I hope we can get our amendment Nos. 197 and 198 pending at the appropriate time. At this point, I hope my colleagues will support Senator McConnell's amendment to stop the EPA from adding costs to the refineries and the gasoline producers of our country.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk in morning business about the energy issue facing the country. Anyone who has filled up the car or truck in the last month knows we have an energy crisis that is building and needs to be addressed. Last week I filled up my pickup truck. It cost about $50. Across the Nation, parents are driving in carpools. Farmers, small business owners, and commuters are experiencing sticker shock at the rising cost to put gas in their vehicles. Today oil is over $104 a barrel. That means on average Americans are paying $3.52 a gallon. It is going in the upward direction from there. We are clearly in an economic downturn. We have high unemployment. Now is not the time to sit back and do nothing as the price of gasoline goes up at the pump. In response, the White House is beginning to talk about tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We know that will not work. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is available for natural disasters and global disasters. But experience has shown that any gain from releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is small and temporary, and prices quickly go right back up to their high and rising levels. If we diminish our resources, our reserves in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we are even more vulnerable to those who would do mischief to the country because they would know we have a diminished supply, or to the natural disasters for which we are supposed to be prepared. Our problem is, we are the only Nation on Earth that has vast natural resources which we will not use. American energy is out there. It is under our land. It is under our waters. It is ready to be tapped, and it can be tapped environmentally safely. We could bring the prices down on our own accord. We know there is upheaval in the Middle East right now that could affect further the gasoline prices because of potential shortages. We are too dependent on foreign sources for our energy needs. It is a little more than 50 percent. That is not strategically sound, and it is most certainly not in our national security interest to leave us at that level. The Gulf of Mexico is one of the biggest resources we have. The Gulf of Mexico accounts for nearly 30 percent of total U.S. oil production and 13 percent of natural gas production. By failing to take full advantage of that resource, we are putting our energy security on the line. Mr. President, 400,000 jobs across the gulf coast are tied to the offshore energy industry. Nearly a year after issuing its moratorium and months since the moratorium was lifted, the Department of the Interior last week approved its first, its one and only, deepwater permit--one in a year. It's one and one only. There are thousands of idled leases, people sitting in the Gulf of Mexico idle that should be able to be at least exploring to determine if it is worth drilling. Yet the gulf is facing a permitorium. My constituents know the pain of this ``permitorium.'' One unfortunate case is the Houston-based Seahawk Drilling Company. Seahawk Drilling used to be the second largest shallow water drilling contractor in the United States. It provided high-paying jobs to men and women in Texas and across the Gulf of Mexico. I say ``used to'' because in February bureaucratic delays in shallow water permitting forced Seahawk Drilling to declare bankruptcy. They could not continue to have the costs associated with their employment levels, and with their company being there without the opportunity to drill and produce and keep their employee base. They declared bankruptcy. It destroyed 1,000 high-paying Texas jobs. I received a letter describing the pain and distress the company felt when it had to inform the dedicated Seahawk employees they no longer had a job. According to the letter, on the day Seahawk was forced to sell its assets and lay off workers, the chief operating officer had to ``fight back the emotions of the day. He took a deep breath and he left the conference room for a room full of Seahawk employees to tell them that their company was bankrupt.'' These are real people with real families who lost real jobs--American jobs--and it could have been prevented. Since the moratorium was enacted, at least 13 rigs--deepwater and shallow water--have departed the Gulf of Mexico, taking with them good American jobs, and, furthermore, putting us in the position of having to import now from the foreign countries where these rigs have gone, not only taking away American jobs but forcing us to be even more dependent on foreign imports for our energy needs. Offshore energy production is expected to decrease by 13 percent in 2011, due to the slow pace of permitting. This is unacceptable, and we must do something that is productive. Yesterday, Senator Landrieu and I introduced the LEASE Act, the Lease Extension and Secure Energy Act of 2011. All our bill does is extend the offshore leases that are impacted by the moratorium and the lack of permitting for 1 year. The LEASE Act returns to lessees the lease time taken from them during the moratorium. This will increase domestic energy production and protect some American jobs--those that have not already left. Despite being unable to explore for energy resources, the leaseholders are continuing to pay the expenses, as time ticks away on their lease. The LEASE Act will prevent leases from running out, and it gives the lessees the certainty they deserve that they will have the full amount of the lease for which they have paid bonus payments to secure. In 2009, the industry accounted for $70 billion in economic value and provided $20 billion in revenue to Federal, State, and local governments through royalties, bonuses, and tax collections. I hope our bill will be noncontroversial. It would seem to me that anyone would agree that if you paid for a 10-year lease, and you have the expenses of exploring to see if that lease has potential, before you drill to see if the lease has potential, you would have the full 10 years, and not 9 years because you have not been able to use the year we have had the moratorium and the lack of permitting. There has been another suggestion by the administration that perhaps we should be proposing energy taxes--up to $90 billion over the next 10 years. The President suggested that in his State of the Union message. Much of the taxes that would go on the oil and gas industry for expenses--that any industry, any business can write off, but would single out the oil and gas industry not to be able to expense their exploration and drilling costs--what would happen? If the prices go up, of course, who is going to pay those high prices? The families and businesses that are having to fill their cars with gasoline. In fact, the administration, through the EPA, is trying to bring more expenses to the refining industry by purporting to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The administration is also adding to the refiners by saying they should not get the manufacturing tax credit. We have been trying to encourage manufacturing in America because we want manufacturing jobs in America, and so many of those have gone overseas. But the administration proposes to tax refiners who are manufacturing the gasoline from the oil and add more expense to the product, which is gasoline, and, oh, by the way, take away the capability for these refiners to have the same treatment as any other manufacturer in our country. Raising taxes on our domestic oil and energy industry is wrong, particularly at this time. We need to assure that we are not going to drive our energy jobs overseas. Yet what the administration is doing is counterintuitive if we all agree we want to keep the jobs in America. So here we are with gas at $3.52 a gallon, and the summer driving season is upon us. We are looking now at estimates from the experts that gasoline could be $4 a gallon. What is that going to do to the family who wants to take a vacation at a reasonable price? What is that going to do to the workers who have to get to work and who are already strapped, and, for Heaven's sake, the poor people who are unemployed who are trying to go and interview for jobs with gas at $4 a gallon? We cannot sit here and let this happen. It is time we get together with the President of the United States and have proactive energy ideas, programs, and solutions that are going to keep jobs in America, that will allow us to use our natural resources to begin to set the stage if we have upheaval in the Middle East that causes the supply to go down at a great rate. We need to have our supply go up to meet the test we should have of lowering energy prices for our people with our own natural resources. It is not to put the SPR out and put us in an even more vulnerable position. No. It is to use our resources, with Americans to take the jobs, and increase our supply so the price of gasoline at the pump goes down for the American people, and so we can have the jobs we should have in America stay in America. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to read the letter from COL William Barret Travis from the Alamo, something I have done every year since Senator Phil Gramm retired. He read the letter on Texas Independence Day every year after Senator Tower left office. So we have a tradition every Texas Independence Day of a Texas Senator reading the very moving speech from William Barret Travis. Today is the 175th anniversary of our independence from Mexico. This past Sunday, I had the honor of participating in the Washington- on-the-Brazos' 175th anniversary celebration of the Texas Declaration of Independence signing. It was a special occasion that brought together almost all the 59 signers' descendants. Thousands of proud Texans came to commemorate this most pivotal event in Texas's legacy of freedom and patriotism. My great-great-grandfather, Charles S. Taylor, was willing to sign the document that declared Texas free from Mexico. I am humbled to occupy the Senate seat from Texas that was first held by Thomas Jefferson Rusk, who was another signer of the Texas Declaration of Independence. Those 59 brave men did not just come in and sign a paper. They took great risk. They put their lives, their treasures, and the lives of their families on the line to do this. One hundred seventy-five years later, sometimes you do not think of how hard it was for them to declare this separation from Mexico and know that there was going to be a war fought over it because the Mexican Army was in San Antonio at the Alamo, getting ready to take the Alamo from William Barret Travis and the roughly 180 men who were there who were trying to defend that fortress. The accounts of the revolution have been some of our most dramatic stories of patriotism in both Texas and America. We remember the sacrifice of William Barret Travis, Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, and the others who died bravely defending the Alamo against Santa Anna and his thousands of trained Mexican troops. They were outnumbered by more than 10 to 1. For 13 days of glory, the Alamo defenders bought critical time for GEN Sam Houston, knowing they would probably never leave the mission alive. The late Senator John Tower started the tradition of reading a stirring account by Alamo commander William Barret Travis, and Senator Gramm and now I have continued that tradition. From within the walls of the Alamo, under siege by Santa Anna's Mexican Army of 6,000 trained soldiers, Colonel Travis wrote this letter to the people of Texas and all Americans: Fellow Citizens and Compatriots: I am besieged with a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual Bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison is to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly over the wall. I shall never surrender our retreat. Then I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism, of everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due his honor and that of his country--Victory or Death. --William Barrett Travis, Lt. Col. Commander. Steadfast to the end and independent to the core, that is the essence of Texas. Had Colonel Travis and his men not laid down their lives in the Battle of the Alamo, Sam Houston's victory at San Jacinto just 2 months later would never have been possible. Texas's freedom might not have been won. It is important that every generation of Texas pause to remember the patriots of the Texas revolution: each soldier who gave his life at the Alamo, Goliad, and San Jacinto; the 59 men who met at Washington-on- the-Brazos, putting their lives in danger by signing that Declaration of Independence and becoming heroes for a cause; and the bravery of the women who gave up an easier life in the East to join the struggle to make Texas the marvelous place it is today. My great-great-grandmother was one of those brave women. She took her four children in what was called the Runaway Scrape, trying to flee eastward from Nacogdoches, where they lived, to try to escape the advancing Mexican Army and the Indian raids that were happening all over east Texas. My great-great-grandmother lost all four of her living children during that sad and hard time for Texas. But that was not the last chapter in the revolution. She came back to Nacogdoches, met my great- great-grandfather, who was there signing the Texas Declaration of Independence, and had nine more children. So the women also were heroes and heroines of this time. It is my honor to memorialize the Texas legacy of freedom and patriotism in this way. I ask unanimous consent that my speech at the Washington-on-the- Brazos celebration this past weekend be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I wish to ask the Senator from Arizona to engage in a colloquy with myself and Senator Rockefeller and any others who wish to speak within this colloquy regarding an issue that was not able to be resolved because of the time constraints. I want to say that every stakeholder representing constituents all over America gave greatly to adopt this amendment that will have, in my opinion, a responsible relaxation of the perimeter rule at Washington National Airport. We can talk about the details certainly as we move forward, but there was one major issue left unresolved that I think deserves a colloquy so we know what we have to do to finish this process in conference before we adopt an FAA bill that is a very important bill for our country. I ask the Senator from Arizona to state his concerns about the unfinished part of this bill, and then we will open it for discussion.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote with respect to amendment No. 7 be vitiated; further, that amendment No. 93 be further modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, we are ready for the vote on the amendment. I ask for a vote on amendment No. 93, as further modified.