Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to permanently correct an injustice in the tax code that has harmed citizens in many States of this great Nation. State and local governments have various alternatives for raising revenue. Some levy income taxes, some use sales taxes, and others use a combination of the two. The citizens who pay State and local income taxes have been able to offset some of their Federal income taxes by receiving a deduction for those State and local income taxes. Before 1986, taxpayers also had the ability to deduct their sales taxes. The philosophy behind these deductions is simple: people should not have to pay taxes on their taxes. The money that people must give to one level of government should not also be taxed by another level of government. Unfortunately, citizens of some States were treated differently after 1986 when the deduction for State and local sales taxes was eliminated. This discriminated against those living in States, such as my home State of Texas, with no income taxes. It is important to remember the lack of an income tax does not mean citizens in these States do not pay State taxes; revenues are simply collected differently. It is unfair to give citizens from some States a deduction for the revenue they provide their State and local governments, while not doing the same for citizens from other States. Federal tax law should not treat people differently on the basis of State residence and differing tax collection methods, and it should not provide an incentive for States to establish income taxes over sales taxes. This discrepancy has a significant impact on Texas. According to the Texas Comptroller, extending the deduction would save Texans a projected $1.2 billion a year, or an average of $520 per filer claiming the deduction. The Texas Comptroller also estimates continuing the deduction is associated with 15,700 to 25,700 Texas jobs and $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion in gross state product. Recognizing the inequity in the tax code, Congress reinstated the sales tax deduction in 2004 and authorized it for 2 years. Congress further extended the sales tax deduction in 2006 and 2008, respectively. On January 1, 2010, however, the sales tax deduction expired, and, for much of this past year, many Americans once again faced the prospect of paying Federal income taxes on their State and local sales taxes. Fortunately, under the recent agreement to extend the broader tax relief for all Americans, Congress staved off the return of the sales tax deduction by extending it for 2 years, retroactive to January 1, 2010. However, this deduction is only in effect through 2011, and we must act to prevent the inequity from returning. The legislation I am offering today will fix this problem for good by making the State and local sales tax deduction permanent. This will permanently end the discrimination suffered by my fellow Texans and citizens of other States who do not have the option of an income tax deduction. This legislation is about reestablishing equity to the tax code and defending the important principle of eliminating taxes on taxes. I hope my fellow Senators will support this effort and pass this legislation, and I appreciate the backing of Senators Barrasso, Begich, Cornyn, Alexander, Enzi and Thune who have already signed on as co-sponsors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to provide permanent tax relief from the marriage penalty--the most egregious, anti-family provision in the tax code. One of my highest priorities in the United States Senate has been to relieve American taxpayers of this punitive burden. We have made important strides to eliminate this unfair tax and provide marriage penalty relief by raising the standard deduction and enlarging the 15 percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single filers. Before these provisions were changed, 42 percent of married couples paid an average penalty of $1,400. Enacting marriage penalty relief was a giant step for tax fairness, but it may be fleeting. Even as married couples use the money they now save to put food on the table and clothes on their children, a tax increase looms in the future. While I am pleased that relief from the marriage penalty was included in the recent agreement to extend the broader tax relief for all Americans, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect through 2012. In 2013, marriage will again be a taxable event and a significant number of married couples will again pay more in taxes unless we act decisively. Given the challenges many families face in making ends meet, we must make sure we do not backtrack on this important reform. The benefits of marriage are well established, yet, without marriage penalty relief, the tax code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk down the aisle. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. Children living in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates these children are also less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence. We should celebrate marriage, not penalize it. The bill I am offering would make marriage penalty relief permanent, because marriage should not be a taxable event. I welcome and appreciate the support of Senators Ensign, Johanns, Cornyn, and Vitter, who have signed on as cosponsors, and I call on the Senate to finish the job we started and make marriage penalty relief permanent today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to permanently correct an injustice in the tax code that has harmed citizens in many States of this great Nation. State and local governments have various alternatives for raising revenue. Some levy income taxes, some use sales taxes, and others use a combination of the two. The citizens who pay State and local income taxes have been able to offset some of their Federal income taxes by receiving a deduction for those State and local income taxes. Before 1986, taxpayers also had the ability to deduct their sales taxes. The philosophy behind these deductions is simple: people should not have to pay taxes on their taxes. The money that people must give to one level of government should not also be taxed by another level of government. Unfortunately, citizens of some States were treated differently after 1986 when the deduction for State and local sales taxes was eliminated. This discriminated against those living in States, such as my home State of Texas, with no income taxes. It is important to remember the lack of an income tax does not mean citizens in these States do not pay State taxes; revenues are simply collected differently. It is unfair to give citizens from some States a deduction for the revenue they provide their State and local governments, while not doing the same for citizens from other States. Federal tax law should not treat people differently on the basis of State residence and differing tax collection methods, and it should not provide an incentive for States to establish income taxes over sales taxes. This discrepancy has a significant impact on Texas. According to the Texas Comptroller, extending the deduction would save Texans a projected $1.2 billion a year, or an average of $520 per filer claiming the deduction. The Texas Comptroller also estimates continuing the deduction is associated with 15,700 to 25,700 Texas jobs and $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion in gross state product. Recognizing the inequity in the tax code, Congress reinstated the sales tax deduction in 2004 and authorized it for 2 years. Congress further extended the sales tax deduction in 2006 and 2008, respectively. On January 1, 2010, however, the sales tax deduction expired, and, for much of this past year, many Americans once again faced the prospect of paying Federal income taxes on their State and local sales taxes. Fortunately, under the recent agreement to extend the broader tax relief for all Americans, Congress staved off the return of the sales tax deduction by extending it for 2 years, retroactive to January 1, 2010. However, this deduction is only in effect through 2011, and we must act to prevent the inequity from returning. The legislation I am offering today will fix this problem for good by making the State and local sales tax deduction permanent. This will permanently end the discrimination suffered by my fellow Texans and citizens of other States who do not have the option of an income tax deduction. This legislation is about reestablishing equity to the tax code and defending the important principle of eliminating taxes on taxes. I hope my fellow Senators will support this effort and pass this legislation, and I appreciate the backing of Senators Barrasso, Begich, Cornyn, Alexander, Enzi and Thune who have already signed on as co-sponsors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask the Senator from Alabama, I thought he was objecting on Senator Murray's time, and I was next in the unanimous consent. My question is, is he finished with his objection?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise to speak on the START treaty. I spoke on the floor Saturday stating my concerns about this treaty and the need to address a number of very important issues. I had hoped that amendments that had been offered would be able to clarify the position--the United States position--on this treaty. I have listened to the debate. I have watched many amendments go down. The treaty supporters have said that these amendments are deal killers, treaty killers. I disagree. I believe everybody has been sincere, but I am not persuaded that the Senate's role to advise and consent to treaties has successfully finetuned the understanding on our part, if we accept this treaty, nor the Russian positions--have they been clarified with our objections or disagreements with the Russian position. I understand it would have made it hard for the administration to amend the text. But even amendments that would try to amend the preamble, or even the ratification resolution that would clarify the United States position, have caused me great pause. For instance, when we are talking about missile defense, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, said: Russians tend to interpret every utterance as binding commitment. She went on to write: The Russians need to understand that the U.S. will use the full range of American technology and talent to improve our ability to intercept and destroy the ballistic missiles of hostile countries. I am concerned that this treaty still has a lot of misunderstanding about the United States missile defense capability. I am concerned that our capability, with the understanding of Russians, would be restricted. Russia and the United States each have issued unilateral statements when they signed the New START that clarified their position on the relationship between START and missile defense. Russia stated: The treaty can operate and be viable only if the United States refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively. I think we should state clearly in the resolution to ratify that it is not the position of the United States to place any limitations on missile defense. The President wrote a letter saying he disagreed with the Russian position and, yet, Senator McCain offered an amendment that would have stricken language in the preamble of the treaty that would have made it clear what the United States position was, and that amendment was not adopted by this body. As we speak, I don't believe Russia is our enemy. This is a 10-year treaty. We don't know 10 years down the road how relationships might change. I believe our relationship with Russia is important, but there are rogue nations in the world that are hostile to the United States, which are working in earnest to get nuclear capability and possibly already have it, plus warheads to put those nuclear weapons on. With the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran or North Korea, or Pakistan, which is our ally, which has a fragile government, or even Venezuela, which is working with Iran and is certainly within our hemisphere, it would be unthinkable to have any kind of miscommunication about the United States capability to control its own defense capabilities. That is exactly what the Russian statement said we could not do. U.S. planning and force requirements may have to change in the next 10 years and, frankly, I think they ought to be going forward right now to ensure that we can withstand any kind of warhead, nuclear or otherwise, that would come in from rogue nations. That in itself is enough for me to say we have not fulfilled our responsibility under the Constitution for advice to the President on treaties. That is our solemn responsibility, and I do not think we have been successfully able to do that because we have been blocked on every amendment, calling them deal killers. I think a strong New START is in our best interest. But I believe that this treaty does not address other areas of concern I have voiced as well. I believe this treaty could further be improved by increasing the number of type one and type two inspections, as was attempted by the Inhofe amendment that was defeated yesterday. For instance, we know there are loose nukes that have come from Russian arsenals in the past, because the Russians have not had a clear control, or list of, or don't seem to be totally firm about where all of their arsenal is, and they don't seem to have the accountability. So the loose nukes, it has been reported, have shown up in other places, such as, for instance, North Korea. So I think verification becomes more important, to get a true idea of exactly what the Russians have, so there can be an accountability going forward to assure that whatever number are in whatever place would always stay the same, unless they are part of the drawdown. I think the verification amendment Senator Inhofe had that was defeated would have improved our capability to understand exactly what was out there that might loosely go to Iran or North Korea, with whom the Russians have relationships, though we do not. Former Secretary of State James Baker described the treaty's verification regime as weaker than its predecessor. I agree with his comment, and I hope we can improve the situation. To be fair, Secretary Baker supports the treaty. But he did recognize its shortcomings, and I think that should have been addressed by the Senate, without fear of what the Russians might say about our capability to defend against threats, not from Russia necessarily, other than the haplessness of not knowing for sure where your nuclear weapons are--I don't think Russia is our enemy. I want a relationship with Russia. The missile defense we were not able to even clarify in the resolution of ratification causes me great concern. The verification not being as adequate as I think we need, and then the modernization, which we also address in other amendments, I think, are also problematic. I believe we must know our nuclear warheads could be used in the worst-case circumstance, because I think that is a deterrent. Because of these things, I am going to vote no today on the ratification of the treaty. I think the Senate could have improved the understanding of this treaty. I think we could have strengthened it with real amendments that would have strengthened even what the President said in his letter to the Senate, saying that he disagreed with the Russian interpretation. But then when we tried to put that in writing, that didn't pass. So I believe we should not pass this treaty today. I think we can fulfill our responsibility for advice and consent and have a more bipartisan passing of the resolution. I think we need a good relationship with Russia. I think we need to protect, at all costs, the United States unilateral capability for missile defense for our country against other nations. I don't think Russia is a threat, but I do think rogue nations that have nuclear capabilities are. I think the symbiotic relationship between Venezuela and Iran is a very real threat to the United States. I think we need to start preparing more carefully about that. I know my time is up. I appreciate the time to state my reasons for voting against this and hope that when it passes--which I think it will--we will be more firm in clarifying with the Russians our view of our national security interests. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the Senator from Alabama wants to finish his objection--

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to pay tribute to the 16 Senators who will be departing this body at the end of the year. I am grateful for the opportunity I have had to serve alongside each of these Senators as colleagues and as friends. All served their States with distinction and gave their constituents strong voices in the world's greatest deliberative body. Senators Evan Bayh, Robert Bennett, Kit Bond, Sam Brownback, Jim Bunning, Roland Burris, Chris Dodd, Byron Dorgan, Russ Feingold, Carte Goodwin, Judd Gregg, Ted Kaufman, George LeMieux, Blanche Lincoln, Arlen Specter, and George Voinovich each left an indelible mark on the Senate, and I wish them well as they take on new challenges and opportunities into the future. I would like to speak briefly about a few of the Senators I knew best and served with in committees to recognize their contributions and accomplishments and share my fond memories of them and the legacies they will leave behind. Bob Bennett For nearly two decades, Senator Bob Bennett has honorably served the people of Utah. His career in the U.S. Senate has been marked by his commonsense solutions to many of the most pressing issues facing our country. Before serving in the Senate, Bob was a successful entrepreneur as the CEO of Franklin International Institute. Under Bennett's leadership, the business grew from 4 employees to more than 1,000 and was listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Bob brought his past experiences running a successful company with him to the Senate. His business sense was certainly an asset that informed his decisions as a U.S. Senator and made him an effective advocate for businesses, large and small, who keep our economy strong. Being a former businessowner myself, I valued his pragmatic perspective and ability to get things done. As a senior member of the Senate Banking Committee and a member of the distinguished Joint Economic Committee, Bob has been a leader in many national economic policy decisions. In addition, while serving as the ranking republican on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, he has worked to address the critical funding needs our country faces on a wide range of energy and water related issues. I am proud to have served with Bob for so many years, and his leadership and kind manner will be sorely missed in the Senate. Jim Bunning I wish Senator Jim Bunning well as he departs the Senate. Much of his legacy can be defined by his competitive spirit and strong work ethic. These attributes have been evident throughout his many successes in life, first in his career as a Hall of Fame baseball player and then later as a public servant, representing the people of Kentucky. Being an avid sports fan myself, I hold deep admiration for those who can play at the highest levels of competitive sports and later bring that drive to the Senate! Following his highly successful professional baseball career for 17 years, Jim decided he wanted to give back to his community. In 1977, he ran for city council and then later ran for the Kentucky State Senate eventually becoming the Republican leader. In 1986, Jim was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives for the 4th District of Kentucky, where he served for 12 years before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 1998. During Jim's tenure in Congress, he has established himself as an expert and defender of social security, fighting hard to protect social security for current and future generations. His hard work and devotion will be missed by the people of Kentucky, whom I know are grateful for his many years of service. Kit Bond Kit Bond has a long and distinguished history of service to the people of Missouri. As one of the longest serving Members in the U.S. Senate and a former two-term Governor, his life's work has been dedicated to the State of Missouri. In the Senate, Kit has been a respected leader on many issues, such as national security, transportation, and global economic competiveness. While serving as the vice chairman on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, he has worked hard to strengthen national security through supporting the U.S. military and reforming the Nation's intelligence community. And as the leader of the Senate National Guard Caucus, no one has done more to support the role of the National Guard in our defense. Kit and I have worked on many issues together during our time in the Senate. In particular, last year when Democratic lawmakers tried to push cap-and-trade bills through Congress, Kit and I released the report, ``Climate Change Legislation: A $3.6 Trillion Gas Tax.'' Our joint report revealed how climate legislation would result in a massive new national gas tax on American families, farmers, workers and truckers--by increasing the price of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. It has been my pleasure to serve with Senator Bond. His office has been next to mine for 12 years and it will not be the same without that familiar cigar aroma lingering in the second floor halls of Russell. Without a doubt, he will be missed by his colleagues in the Senate and his constituents in Missouri. Sam Brownback While Senator Sam Brownback will certainly be missed by the Senate, the people of Kansas will continue to benefit from his leadership, as he serves as their newly-elected Governor. Prior to being elected to public office, Sam's professional experiences include working as a radio broadcaster, attorney, teacher, and administrator. From these varied professional experiences he brought with him a unique and dynamic perspective to the U.S. Senate. Through his leadership as the ranking member on the Joint Economic Committee, ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, and ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resource Subcommittee on Water and Power, Sam established himself as a leader on a wide range of issues. During his tenure in the Senate, he has supported aviation research and expanded global aviation markets. Through these efforts, he has effectively spurred economic growth and strengthened the U.S. military. Some of Sam's most distinguishing characteristics are his personal integrity and his commitment to his Catholic faith. These principles came through in much of what he did in the Senate. I will always appreciate his passion and his work to translate his beliefs into his actions as a U.S. Senator. I am confident Senator Brownback will continue to serve the people of Kansas with the same character and dedication in his new role as governor. Chris Dodd Senator Chris Dodd departs the Senate after nearly three decades faithfully representing the people of Connecticut. From his service in the Peace Corps, the U.S. Army National Guard and Reserves as well as his many years in the U.S. Senate, Senator Dodd's commitment to public service and love for his country have been evident throughout his life. Chris was a leader in the Senate, serving as the chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Narcotics, and chairman of its Children and Families Subcommittee. Although we had our differences on various policy issues, I always appreciated his willingness to put partisanship aside to reach consensus when possible in order to improve legislation. For instance, earlier this year when working on the financial reform bill, despite my public opposition to the legislation, Chris worked with me to incorporate my amendments in the final version of the bill. I ultimately voted against the bill, but I am grateful for the efforts he made to include my amendments. Today we bid him farewell after 29 years of tireless service in the U.S. Senate. Byron Dorgan Today we say goodbye to Senator Byron Dorgan after 18 years in the Senate, serving the State of North Dakota. First elected to Congress in 1980, Dorgan has devoted his career to serving North Dakota and fighting for the interests of rural America. After serving six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, Byron was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992. I have had the pleasure to serve with Senator Dorgan on the Senate Commerce Committee. Last summer, we joined together with several of our colleagues in the Senate to introduce bipartisan legislation that reauthorized the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA. The legislation accelerated the modernization of the Nation's air traffic control, ATC system, addressed critical safety concerns in the national airspace system, NAS, and improved rural community access to air service. I appreciated Byron's willingness to champion good ideas put forward by members from either side of the aisle. By focusing on issues where consensus could be achieved, he helped to move the debate forward on important issues and solve problems. Senator Dorgan leaves the Senate with my best wishes and respect. Judd Gregg As a leading voice for fiscal responsibility, Senator Judd Gregg will be deeply missed in the Senate. Throughout his long and distinguished career, with unparalleled commitment to fiscal discipline, Senator Gregg worked to address many pressing issues. Senator Gregg is a well known budget expert and national leader on the most critical issues facing our country in recent years, notably health care, economic issues, and financial regulation. His efforts to address the looming entitlement crisis, the rising cost of health care, and the inefficient and complex tax system are commendable and serve as an example to all elected officials. In the Senate, Senator Gregg has also focused his efforts on helping the U.S. maintain its position as the leading destination for capital and investment in the world. I appreciate the job Senator Gregg has done in his position as the former chairman and current ranking member of the Budget Committee. In 2006, Judd sponsored an amendment that strengthened border security by providing resources to integrate biometric databases as well as construction of new stations and check points and tactical infrastructure for immigration and customs enforcement. Unlike other similar proposals at the time, his amendment was offset and did not add to the deficit. I will miss working with him in this Chamber, and I will miss his friendship and support on the issues that matter most to America. In conclusion, the departing Senators' contributions, their dedicated service, and the issues they championed will be remembered long after their final days in the Senate. I believe I can speak for my fellow Senators when I say that we will all miss our departing friends.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I know the subject we are on now is the New START Treaty. It is a very important subject. I appreciate so much all the debate we have had. I hope we will be able to go forward and allow people to have amendments within this time because it is a huge issue for our country. I wish to speak on a different subject right now because it is so timely. Today, the Federal Communications Commission voted 3 to 2 to impose new regulations on the Internet. This is an unprecedented power grab by the unelected members of the Federal Communications Commission, spearheaded by its chairman. The FCC is attempting to push excessive government regulation of the Internet through without congressional authority. These actions threaten the very future of this incredible technology. The FCC pursuit of Net neutrality regulations involves claiming authority under the Communications Act that they do not have. Congress did not provide the FCC authority to regulate how Internet service providers manage their network, not anywhere in the Communications Act nor any other statute administered by the Commission. Adopting and imposing Net neutrality regulations is, in effect, legislating. It takes away the appropriate role of Congress in determining the proper regulatory framework for the fastest growing sector of our economy. The real-world impact of the FCC's action today is that it will be litigated. It will take 18 months to 2 years to sort through the briefings and the court decisions, and it will probably go to the Supreme Court of the United States. In the meantime, capital investment will slow in core communications networks, and I cannot think of a worse possible time for that, as we attempt to create jobs and fuel a recovery from the most significant recession in years. Elected representatives should determine if regulation is necessary in this area. Hearings would bring opposing parties to the table, and the process would be open. Instead, an unelected and unaccountable group of regulators are creating new authority to intervene in an area that represents one-sixth of the Nation's economy. I wish to go through a few of the specific provisions in this FCC order. The first one is an order to require broadband providers, such as Comcast and AT&T, to allow subscribers to send and receive any lawful Internet traffic, to go where they want, say what they want, to use any nonharmful online devices or applications they want to use. These principles are widely supported. I don't object and neither would probably anyone. However, these principles are already in use. We don't need a big regulatory intervention to accomplish these principles. It is the rest of the order that is diametrically opposed to this statement of openness and freedom. It installs a government arbiter to force their idea of freedom on the users of the Internet and on the companies that are trying to make the Internet the economic engine of America. The first provision that deals with this is that networks must be transparent. It says networks must be transparent about how they manage their networks, i.e., decisions about engineering, traffic routing, and quality of service. Transparency requirements usually translate to reporting and consumer disclosure requirements that are heavily prescribed and expensive to comply with, and the possible disclosure of proprietary information could affect competition. The real-world impact of this is higher costs to consumers. The Commission will increase regulatory reporting and consumer disclosure requirements as a result of this provision, and the cost will be passed along to, of course, the consumers in the form of more expensive services. The second provision is that you may not unreasonably discriminate. The FCC's order states that providers may not unreasonably discriminate against lawful Internet traffic. That sounds fine. But the devil is in the details. The term is vaguely defined in the order, and how the FCC interprets and enforces what is unreasonable will determine how limiting this restriction is. For instance, if a provider notices that a small number of users are sharing huge files that are leading to congestion on the network and determines that slowing down those connections would relieve the congestion for the majority of other users, the FCC would have the right, under this order, to determine that such an action is unreasonable. The real-world impact is that this would diminish the company's flexibility in managing their own services. The unreasonable discrimination provision could undermine the providers' ability to manage their network and guarantee all the users a high quality of service. Companies that build and maintain the networks that make up the Internet need the flexibility to manage the exploding demand for services on their network. Regrettably, the FCC's order curtails that by establishing that the FCC would be an approval portal that companies would have to pass through to manage their day-to-day operations. Surely, there is a better way. The next provision requires that broadband providers must justify new specialized services. Under the FCC orders, providers would now have to come to the FCC in order to offer consumers a new service, something that would be creative and innovative. Instead of offering it to the marketplace and having the competitive advantage from something new, they have to now expose it to all of their competitors by going through a regulatory adjudication at the FCC. Let me give an example of what could happen. A hospital might want to work with a provider, such as Verizon, to offer a new telemedicine service for Verizon subscribers that allows patients at home to interact with their doctors via high-definition video and uninterruptible remote medical monitoring. In order to do this, Verizon might have to prioritize that telemedicine traffic ahead of regular Internet traffic to ensure the appropriate quality of service, particularly if there is a life- threatening situation. The FCC order allows the Commission to determine on a case-by-case basis whether such prioritization is actually unreasonable discrimination because presumably the hospital that is offering the service would be giving better treatment for that telemedicine traffic than the user's regular traffic. Going through a whole regulatory process in order to offer that service is a burden we do not need and that will stifle the innovation that has been a hallmark of the Internet, which led to the explosion of opportunities there. The Commission says it wants innovation to occur, but the language of the order clearly discourages innovation by forcing companies to pass through a government regulatory turnstile to determine whether a particular service, an innovative service, something new that might be a competitive advantage, something new for quality of life, should be allowed. This puts the FCC in the position of picking winners and losers among the new innovative services, and it certainly slows down the opportunity to have new things coming on the market in what is usually a fast-paced economic environment. In some cases, this may be enough to discourage providers from even entering into the special arrangements necessary to offer such services. It is a cumbersome process and, furthermore, it is unnecessary. In another provision, the FCC order will treat wireless broadband services more lightly than wireline broadband services, at least for now. The FCC reserves rights in this order, which are taken without congressional authority, in my opinion--and certainly the courts will litigate that and make its decisions--the FCC reserves the right to regulate wireless just as harshly in the future as they are now attempting to regulate wireline. For now, wireless providers will have more leeway to innovate and to manage their networks. But how much investment are they going to make for the long term if they do not know what the FCC might foresee in the future that needs fixing, even if it is not apparently broken. The real world impact is that wireless is the fastest growing area of communications markets. The threat that the Commission might later apply the wireline prohibitions it has ordered today to this wireless marketplace is a major concern. I commend the two members of the Commission who dissented in the vote today--Rob McDowell and Meredith Atwell Baker. They each did op-eds, one in the Wall Street Journal and one in the Washington Post. I would say the common theme is that this is a solution where there is no problem. We have an open Internet. We have an Internet that is working. It does not need the heavy hand of government. It does not need a government prism through which to determine if the Internet providers are doing an allowable service. We have a marketplace, and the marketplace is working. This is a time for Congress to take a stand. These regulations will raise uncertainty about the methods and practices communications companies may use to manage their networks. Heavy-handed regulation threatens investment and innovation in broadband services, placing valuable American jobs at risk. Why would this be happening in a recession where we are trying to increase jobs, where we are trying to stop the trajectory of unemployment in our country? We need to lay off, and it is time for Congress to take a stand. Individuals and businesses alike are rightfully concerned about government attempts to seize control of the Internet. Senator Ensign, who is the ranking member of a Commerce subcommittee--I am the ranking member on the full Commerce Committee--together we are going to submit a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act in an effort to overturn this troubling regulatory overreach by the FCC. It is time for Congress to say we have not delegated this authority to the FCC. The FCC tried to do this once before using another part of the Communications Act. They were struck down by the courts. Now they have gone to a different interpretation in a different section of the act to try to gain the capability to obstruct freedom on the Internet. It is a huge and serious issue on which I hope Congress will take the reins and say to the FCC: If we need regulation in this area, Congress will do it. We are elected. We are accountable. People can vote what they believe is the right approach by what we do. The FCC is not accountable to the people of our country. Yes, they are accountable to the President and the votes for today's order were from Presidential appointees of this administration. It is another big government intervention where we do not need to suppress innovation. What we need is to embrace innovation so we can create jobs in this country with the freedom that has marked the economic vitality of America for over 200 years. We will have a resolution of disapproval at the appropriate time in the next session of Congress. I look forward to working with other Members of Congress to take the reins on this issue. It is a congressional responsibility. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the START treaty. We have been debating the START treaty off and on throughout the last few days, and there will be an amendment voted on for the resolution after the 3 o'clock vote on don't ask, don't tell. I wish to talk about the amendment and the treaty itself. This historic treaty is seeking, of course, to limit the strategic long- range nuclear weapons that are currently in U.S. and Russian inventory for a total of 1,550 warheads for each country. While these limits require some reductions in the number of delivery vehicles and deployed warheads both countries possess, a change in the counting of warheads will allow both countries to cut hundreds of them on paper with no actual reductions. For example, under START I, each deployed delivery vehicle was counted as carrying a specified number of warheads regardless of how many warheads were actually equipped on the missile or bomber. New START abandons these rules, instead only counting the number of warheads actually equipped on deployed missiles. In addition, strategic bombers each count as one warhead regardless of how many warheads they are actually carrying. I also have reservations because of how New START limits our ability to conduct extensive and robust verification activities to ensure compliance with the treaty. The ability to adequately and thoroughly verify the enforcement of the treaty is crucial for two reasons--not only to ensure that both parties are holding up their end of the bargain but also as it relates to possibly one party losing control of missiles they are not accounting for. It is said in many quarters that some of the deteriorating nuclear materials in Russia have somehow gotten through to rogue nations such as North Korea or Iran. So it is very important to have a verification system that keeps count. I am concerned about the ability to conduct onsite inspections because it has been reduced in this agreement. Under START I, the United States conducted more than 600 inspections over the course of 15 years. In New START, that number has been substantially reduced to only 180 inspections over the course of 10 years. There are only two basic types of inspections in New START. Type one inspections focus on sites with deployed and nondeployed strategic systems. Type two focuses on sites with only nondeployed strategic systems. Each side is allowed to conduct 10 type one inspections and 8 type two inspections annually. Under the previous START treaty, there were 12 types of onsite inspections as well as continuous onsite monitoring activities at a certain facility. Even though, as has been mentioned on this floor in the debate, there are fewer facilities, this is a pretty drastic reduction in the ability to actually have the onsite investigations. Because weapons inspectors will only have 10 opportunities per year to inspect just 2 to 3 percent of Russia's force, we will be more reliant than in previous agreements on the full cooperation of Russia. I really don't know how we could have reached an agreement to substantially reduce our most effective method of enforcement. In fact, a recent State Department report issued by the Obama administration said: Notwithstanding the overall success of START I implementation, a significant number of long-standing compliance issues that have been raised in the START I treaty's Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission remain unresolved. Defense. I am also concerned that proposals under the New START treaty may restrict U.S. missile defense capabilities, which could threaten our national security. Of all of the concerns that have been raised, I think this is the most important. It also is part of the amendment we are going to consider this afternoon. Russia and the United States each issued unilateral statements when they signed New START that clarified their position on the relationship between START and missile defenses. The official Russian statement said: The treaty can operate and be viable only if the United States refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively. Contrary to claims by the Obama administration that missile defense will not be negatively impacted, a review of the text of the treaty shows otherwise. The most obvious limitation on missile defense is found in article V, paragraph 3 of the treaty. It says this prevents converting existing intercontinental ballistic missiles, ICBMs, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles, SLBMs, into launchers for missile defense interceptors. The administration says: Well, it is more expensive to actually convert than to create new ones. Well, we need to have flexibility. Whether we convert or whether we create new ones should not be a limitation on the United States. U.S. planning and force requirements might have to change in the future to respond to evolving world threats during New START's tenure. It is important that our Nation be able to adjust our military defense systems if needed. We are not just talking about Russia now. We are talking about adjusting our missile defense capabilities against any other country in the world, including rogue nations we believe have nuclear capabilities. We are not sure how far developed they are, but we know North Korea is trying to have a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead. We know Iran is too. We know Pakistan has them, and though Pakistan is an ally, it is a fragile government at this point. Why would we in any way link our own missile defense capabilities with the evolving threats out there, regardless of the present good terms we have with Russia? Why would we do that? That is a unilateral capability that our country must insist we keep for our sovereign Nation. The McCain amendment would take out of the preamble to this treaty: Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties. We want to take that out. It is absolutely essential that we take this out of the preamble. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the McCain amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we need to ensure that our defenses are not in any way inhibited by this treaty because we must defend against countries that perhaps are not enemies of Russia, but they might be ours. And to in any way restrict our defenses is not necessary to ensure that we have mutual offensive lowering of numbers. So I am very concerned about this particular segment. If we can adopt the McCain amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, it would take me a significant way toward believing this treaty would be worthy of ratification. I am seriously concerned that although it is clear that a number of restrictions will be placed on the United States under this treaty, the same is not necessarily true for our partner to the treaty--Russia. Dr. Keith Payne, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Policy, has noted that New START's limitations are of little real consequence for Russia because Russia's aged Cold War strategic launchers already have been reduced below New START ceilings. Additionally, many defense analysts predict Russia will have fewer than 1,500 nuclear warheads by 2012. Russian defense expert Mikhail Barabonov bluntly makes the same point. He says: The truth is, Russia's nuclear arsenal is already at or even below the new ceilings. Already at or even below the new ceilings. At the time of the signing of the treaty, Russia had a total of just 640 strategic delivery vehicles--only 571 of them deployed . . . It therefore becomes evident that Russia needs no actual reductions to comply. If anything, it may need to bring some of its numbers up to the new limits, not down. That brings me to the second major point that concerns me about the treaty; that is, the modernization capabilities for our warheads that are part of our arsenal. We can do something about this outside the treaty and still go forward with the ratification, but so far we have not had the assurances that would allow us to know our modernization could be done. According to the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, today's nuclear weapons have aged well beyond their originally planned life, and the nuclear complex has fallen into neglect. It has been 18 years since our arsenal has been tested. I share the concerns of my colleague, Senator Kyl, who has been a leader on this issue. We must ensure--and we can do it in a separate, signed ratification resolution--that the United States has a strong plan that provides for a nuclear modernization program that ensures that if we did need to deploy because a rogue nation that is not part of any treaties or is a part of a treaty but isn't going to comply--we need to ensure our deterrent is real. Our deterrent will be real if our warheads are assured of still being capable of being a deterrent, being deployed, being used in the very worst case circumstances. As President Reagan said, trust, but verify when you are making treaties with other countries, especially this treaty that is going to have such consequences as one that might lower our capability to defend our country from a nuclear missile, a warhead on a missile that could be delivered to our country by a rogue nation. This has nothing to do with Russia. We don't expect them to launch a missile against the United States, that is for sure. But we do know that there are other nations that are enemies of the United States, that are trying to get, and possibly have, nuclear warheads and the capability to deliver them. So we need to assure, first and foremost, two things: that our nuclear capabilities are viable, which means we need a modernization program that we can be assured has an arsenal that can work; No. 2, we need to make sure our ability to maintain missile defense is not negatively impacted by this treaty. There is no reason to connect it to a treaty that is going to limit offenses. As long as our missiles are capable of being deployed, that is leverage we must have. But we certainly have no reason to lower our capability to defend our country unilaterally, which I cannot imagine that any administration--and certainly not the Senate--would sign or ratify a treaty that might take away our capability to defend our country. I would hate for it to be on our watch that we lowered the defenses of the United States, because we are being rushed into ratifying a treaty without the full capability to amend it, or that we don't make sure in every detail, as Senator Kyl has said so many times, that we have preserved our capabilities to defend our country against any enemy; and secondly, that we have the capability to go on offense so that any country that might decide to send a nuclear warhead into our territory, or into anyplace where our troops are on the ground fighting for freedom, that that country or that group of rogue nations would know we could respond because our arsenal of weapons is viable. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am voting for the Coburn motion to suspend the rules to allow the Senate to consider his amendment to offset extension of unemployment benefits because we must be able to discuss ways to start bringing down the deficit. Senator Coburn's amendment provides a fiscally responsible way to extend unemployment insurance for out-of-work Americans and to pay for other costs contained in the tax bill. With the underlying agreement in the tax bill to extend current tax rates for 2 years, individuals and businesses will have more certainty on tax policy. This is needed to spur economic growth and job creation. Senator Coburn's amendment takes the next important step to begin reducing spending to deal with the deficit. The Senate deserves an opportunity to debate and vote on the Coburn amendment so that we can begin this process. I spoke with Senator Coburn about an item in his amendment that would rescind NASA funding for Constellation systems. I strongly oppose this provision, which would significantly disrupt the authorization law we passed in September. NASA is expressly continuing some elements of the Constellation program such as the crew exploration vehicle in order to shorten the time for building the new launch vehicle that will propel human space exploration beyond Earth orbit. Terminating those contracts before they can be transitioned to support the new direction Congress has mandated would force NASA to start over, delaying development of the new launch vehicle, greatly increasing its costs to the American tax payer. It could also jeopardize the full use of the space station for scientific research. Senator Coburn has agreed to revisit this provision in the future, in an effort to assure scientific integrity. All time has expired. The question now is on agreeing to the Coburn motion to suspend with respect to amendment No. 4765. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to say I think the President of the United States and our Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, have done a great job. As I hear the talking heads and the pundits and others talk about this compromise, this way forward, I am sure of it because no one is completely happy with it. People who think we should have a death tax are not happy with this bill. People who think, as I do, the unemployment provision goes too far, is not paid for and should have been are on the other side. But we are now faced with a choice. Are we going to allow the taxes for every single individual in our country who pays taxes to go up on January 1? We could talk all day about how we should have addressed this much earlier. Yes, that is true. But we are where we are. It is now mid-December, and it is long past time when we should have told the American people--every family, every business in this country--what the tax policy is going to be for 2 years. I come here with a business background. I wish more of my colleagues had real business experience because sometimes when I hear the academics and the talking heads talk about what we ought to do--some say: Let's just wait. We can do this better next year. Are you kidding me? Have you ever been in the real world trying to make a decision about whether you can add one more piece of machinery to your factory floor and hire people to run it? You are not going to make the decision if you do not know what your commitments are going to be in taxes and in the health care bill that is looming before every business in this country. Not only did I come from a business background, but I talk to business people throughout my State. They are not hiring. Two-thirds of the jobs in this country are created by small business. That is exactly what we should all hope for. We don't want jobs to be created in the government sector. That is a cost you cannot recoup. We need to cut down on government sector jobs and make sure people in the private sector are working because this is how to build a strong and vibrant economy. As I mentioned, two-thirds of private-sector jobs are in small business, and small businesspeople are operating, generally, at low margins. They are not hiring people when they are seeing estimates on the cost to them of the health care bill enacted this year, including estimates that their taxes are going to go up next year. At every level, taxes will go up if we do not pass this tax bill this year. Capital gains and dividends are going to go up. Seniors have saved their lifetimes to be able to retire, and they know they cannot live on Social Security. Social Security was never meant to be a complete retirement plan. It was meant to be a cushion, a help with savings that would allow people to maintain a standard of living. Talk to seniors today who have saved, and they are not earning one penny on their savings. They certainly are not going to do well if we raise the tax on capital gains and dividends. What are we thinking? To raise taxes on capital gains and dividends, that is the level that allows many seniors to live at a decent standard. What about the tax rate? Every person who pays taxes faces an increase on January 1 if we do not pass this bill because they would go into a higher bracket, and face a higher rate at each level. Let's go back to small business. NFIB, the National Federation of Independent Business, which is the largest small business organization in America, says 75 percent of the small businesses in this country are taxed at individual rates. If their taxes go up it will present a barrier to their being able to plan for the future and hire. People in business want predictability and stability. That is why having at least 2 years is so very important. Doing it now so they can plan for next year is so very important because they are looking for predictability. If I had written this bill with nobody else's opinions, I would have made them permanent because I know small business would much rather have certainty for 10 years of what is going to happen, or at least 5 years. But I did not get to write it by myself--neither did Senator McConnell, or the President. We have all sponsored bills to make the tax cuts permanent because we want jobs to be created in the private sector knowing these are the good jobs of the future that can be sustained and grow our economy. If we allow these tax cuts to expire, the marriage penalty is going to come back. The marriage penalty is my amendment that was put into the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. My amendment was to relieve the marriage tax. A policeman and a schoolteacher who marry go into a higher bracket just because they got married, not because they increased their incomes. That is wrong. Two schoolteachers who marry would go into a higher bracket, but the marriage penalty relief bill I sponsored relieves them to the greatest extent. It doubles the standard deduction instead of paring it back, and that is what we need to have. What about the AMT? The AMT relief in this bill goes to the very lowest income earners in this country. If we do not pass this bill, 21 million American taxpayers will have to pay an alternative minimum tax because the government says they are not paying enough. Now, I think it is a fair question--at what point does the AMT kick in? Today, the AMT kicks in for a single person who makes $33,000 and a married couple who makes $45,000. If we don't pass this bill through this Congress and let the President sign it, a married couple making $45,000 will have to pay the alternative minimum tax. Our bill gives relief. The bill that is on the floor gives relief so that the exemption from the AMT would go up to $72,000 for a married couple before the alternative minimum tax kicks in and to $47,000 for a single payer. So the bottom line is, if you think a single person making $33,000 ought to have to pay the alternative minimum tax, then I cannot explain it to you. I do not think a single person making $33,000 should be subject to an alternative minimum tax because they are not paying enough tax. The AMT relief in the bill will push it up to a level that is more reasonable--$47,000 for a single person and $72,000 for a married couple. The estate tax relief--I think this is a significant advance for the real world. Again, for small businesspeople, farmers, and ranchers, a $1 million exemption will force farmers and small businesspeople whose equipment is valued at more than it can produce to sell--what happens is that the heirs to that estate will have to sell the equipment or the business or part of the farm or all of the farm to pay taxes to the government. And the irony is that the money in an inheritance tax is money that has been taxed and taxed and taxed again. People pay taxes on their earnings, people pay taxes on their profits in a business, they pay taxes when they earn on their earnings. The death tax does not make sense in the American dream because we have always said this is a country where you can work hard and give your children the fruits of your labor. But because of the death tax, family businesses are cut by 50 percent in this country because heirs have to sell the business to pay the taxes. That does not affect just the family; it affects the people who work for the family business. I want to keep the American dream alive. I think the inheritance tax should be done away with completely because it is money that has already been taxed; it has been taxed in the system again and again and again. Every time something is earned, you pay a tax. So there is no policy reason for a death tax. I did not get to write the bill by myself, and neither did Senator McConnell. We would have made estate tax relief permanent. But it is not going to be permanent, and it is not going away. It is going to be a 2-year extension, with a $5 million exemption and a 35-percent rate after that. I believe this bill provides some relief and helps people to plan for their estates. I hope we can make it permanent so people will be able to plan into the far future so that their small business, their farm, their ranch can be held by their heirs and keep the jobs those family- owned businesses have produced. So I think it is important, when we get down to the bottom line--do we pass this bill or not?--that there are alternatives. We could say: You know what, I want to write it differently. Let's wait until next year. First of all, if we do that and we open up what I think is a very balanced approach, then we are going to talk about this a whole lot longer. It is going to take a while, and in the meantime people are not going to be hired because small businesses will not know what their tax liabilities are going to be, and we will not have this settled, these concerns for at least 2 years. Next, we can work on long-term tax reform. I thought the fiscal commission that just reported had some very good ideas for tax reform where everyone would pay more of a flat tax. It would be slightly higher at the higher levels, bring in more revenue at the higher levels and lower the tax on everyone. It would bring in more because it would be simpler and more fair. I think we ought to look at that. We may need to make changes in one way or another, but it was a good starting place. But if we wait until next year to pass a bill, we are going to throw this economy into upheaval, and we will certainly not create the jobs that are the motivation behind this agreement. The President and the Republicans agreed on one thing; that is, the goal should be to spur the economy and create jobs. How we get there, we have differences, but at least there are some parts on both ends that will have the effect of giving stability and predictability to the small businesses in our country that create two-thirds of the jobs so that they can start hiring. That should be the dispositive part of the decision we all need to make to vote for this bill. You would have written it differently, Madam President, I would have written it differently, the President would have written it differently, and so would Senator McConnell, if we were the king and queen of America. Fortunately, we are in a democracy, not a monarchy, so we cannot have everything exactly the way we want it. This is a good start. Let me end by suggesting that once we make this decision--and I hope we will make the decision to move forward, and I hope the House will join us--then we will not have to discuss tax cuts for 2 years. People will know what they are going to owe for 2 years, and they will be able to start making plans on that. But the argument that is being made--that this is going to add more in the deficit--does need to be addressed, and once this bill is passed, we must get about the business of cutting overall spending by this government. And that is not just the discretionary part, which is a minor part of our budget, it is also the entitlements. What can we do to make the entitlements not continue to grow beyond the capability to pay for them in a reasonable economy? We must get the debt down, we must get the deficit down, and we have to concentrate on that if we put the tax cuts to bed. One of the things we need to address is the implementation of this health care bill, which is the other factor in jobs not being created right now. I hope we can repeal what we have passed and start all over so that the businesspeople know that what we passed is not going to work. It is going to be in the courts for a long time because of the constitutional issues. Let's go about planning for a health care reform that doesn't put the fines and the penalties on businesses and individuals. Let's give them options so that affordable health care is there for them. We don't have to do that with a hammer; we can do it with options that are incentives for people to get health insurance because it will be affordable. Let them make choices for what fits their family, not a big, government- prescribed one-size-fits-all. Let's start getting serious about a bipartisan effort to cut the spending and cut the debt and cut the deficit. Let's set some parameters around extending unemployment so that more people will be hired and we will set standards that are reasonable for people to start giving back to the community if they are able-bodied and have been unemployed for 2 years and more. If we are creative and we work together, we can do this. But tearing this package apart and saying: Well, I want it all my way, means we are not going to have the stability and predictability that will create jobs starting next year. That is our stated goal on both sides. I hope the Members of the House will realize that anything we do next year is going to have to be with a Democratically controlled Senate and a Republican-controlled House, and that means everything is not going to be our way. I would not have written this agreement exactly this way, and neither would Senator McConnell. I am sure the President would not either. But Senator McConnell and the President have done what leaders need to do: they have come together on a bill that will move this country forward, and it will not increase taxes on anyone who is paying taxes today. How can anyone believe it will be good for the economy of our country to raise taxes in a recession? I am sure we are going to hear a lot of debate on this floor about what individual Senators would have done differently, but the bottom line is, this Senate will overwhelmingly pass this package. I hope that when all of the debate is finished, this bill will be signed by the President and we will move forward in a joint effort to reduce the debt of this country, as adult leaders should do. That should be our goal for the next 2 years, as we now have settled the tax cut issue. Hopefully, we will go with a vengeance against the debt and some reform in the entitlement programs. We can do it. It will not be easy, but it can be done. That is why we ran for these offices--to be the leaders when our country needs leadership. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today the House passed legislation that would extend the tax cuts for those middle-class taxpayers who make under $200,000 a year. That is a good thing, and I support that. But why on Earth would we extend the tax cuts for a certain segment of the population and not extend the tax cuts for everyone? Why would we do that? Who are the job creators in our country? What is the problem our country has right now? It is jobs. We have an unemployment rate that is hovering around 10 percent. So what should we be doing in Congress to try to alleviate that situation? We should be doing everything in our power to create jobs in the private sector. The private sector is where jobs will be a created, where it will be something that will support a family. Of course, we are going to support tax cuts for everyone in this country because we are in an economic recession. The idea of increasing taxes on the people who would create jobs is something that could only come out of Washington. All of us have been home for the last few weeks. Last week was Thanksgiving, and we were in grocery stores talking to our constituents. Time and time again I heard people in the real world, people who are creating jobs, saying: Why don't you all address the issues of this country? Don't you know what is happening? Well, do you know something? They have a point. They have a point because, of course, many of us have been saying this for a long time. But here we are in December, the last month of the year. The IRS can't even print the tax forms because they don't know what the tax rates are going to be because Congress left in September and didn't finish its job. Now here we are in December and we are going to have a train wreck. That is why those on our side signed a letter saying that we are not going to address any issue until we settle the tax issue and the issue of funding government. After that, there are many things that could be on the agenda. But those are two things that are essential. So knowing the way things work around here, and knowing that we could end up talking for 2 more weeks before we do anything, we are going to set the priority to say that it is tax cuts and it is funding the government, and if we can do other things, fine, but if we can't, then we go home. I think the START Treaty is very important, and we are all looking at that. But we have to make sure the small businesspeople of our country know what to expect. And if they can hire people on even in this holiday season, it will make a difference. President Reagan and President Kennedy and President Bush 43 all did something that had the same effect on our revenue in this country; they cut taxes and revenue increased. Cutting taxes is what increases and spurs the economy, and it works every time. So now we are talking about deciding who is going to get their tax cuts and who isn't. We should be saying clearly and simply to the American people--and especially the small businesspeople who are waiting to see what their budgets are going to be next year--we are not going to raise taxes on anybody because we want you to hire; we want you to give jobs to the people of this country. If we can extend unemployment for those who have been out of work and can't find something, and they are really trying, and we can do it in a responsible way and pay for it, hopefully--I believe if we cut taxes, that will spur the economy and pay for it. Tomorrow, apparently, in the Senate we are going to get the House bill that passed today that cuts taxes for some but not all. So what will happen if we do what the House has suggested? Households will lose, on average, $20,000 in total disposable personal income between 2011 and 2020. Total individual income taxes will increase by $37 million between 2011 and 2020. Jobs will be lost and small businesses are not going to hire. I can tell you that anecdotally because I have been talking to the small business owners in my State. I was a small business owner, and I know what it takes to increase employment. Without action by us, the death tax will return with a vengeance. A lot of people think: Oh, a death tax, that is just going to affect the heirs of rich people. I think we have to remember that estates over $1 million will be taxed at the 55-percent rate. So many small businesses in this country are either farms or ranches, where the valuation at death on the property is going to be so much higher than the productivity on that land, and the heirs are going to be faced with selling the property to pay the taxes, which means it will no longer have any capacity for hiring people or productivity. The same is true for small manufacturing companies. I was a small manufacturer. I can tell you my equipment was worth a whole lot more than the productivity of that equipment. You can pay for it over time, so you own the equipment. But then if you die and your heirs have to pay a huge estate tax on the value of equipment, then they are going to have to sell the equipment and, therefore, you have lost the business. The statistics in this country of family businesses that are passed to the second generation and the third generation are abysmal. It is about 50 percent that goes to the second generation. To the third generation, it is 20 to 30 percent. Who does that hurt? Of course, it hurts the families. It also hurts the employees of those family-owned businesses. They are the ones who will be put out of work. So the estate tax going to 55 percent over $1 million is not good public policy. It would be outrageous for us to leave this year and go into that kind of estate tax, which is confiscatory. I have to tell you, I think it walks away from the American dream. The American dream is that you can start from nothing in this country and you can build something and you can give the fruits of your labor to your children. That is the American dream. That is what people come here and work for 7 days a week in restaurants, to try to build something to give to their children. Who are we to take that away? That is the American dream. But it will be gone at the end of this year if we don't address that issue in Congress. Capital gains and dividends: How many of our seniors are living on capital gains and dividends? I guarantee you, anybody who has a bank account knows you are not earning anything from that. You are not earning from cash because the interest rates are so low that many of our seniors are struggling. If they have a nest egg of stocks that is paying some dividends, then that is what many of them are living on. So we are going to raise the tax on dividends from 15 percent to 20 percent at a time when so many seniors are struggling. That is what is going to happen if we don't address the tax cuts by the end of this year. The marriage penalty: That is my bill. I introduced relief from the marriage penalty. Why should two people working get married and go into a higher tax bracket in this country? We addressed that issue. For most people, we have eliminated the marriage penalty, but not at the end of this year, if we don't act, the marriage penalty comes back. So a policeman and a schoolteacher who marry are going to have to pay about $1,400 more in taxes just because they want to get married--a schoolteacher and a policeman. It is an absolute fact. Is that what we want in this country? Small business owners pay at the individual rates--a subchapter S small business. Many small businesses are created to be able to pay at the individual tax rate. Over 50 percent of the small businesses in our country pay at the individual tax rate. So now we are going to say individuals' tax rates are going to go up if they make over $250,000, which is many of the small businesses in our country, so they are going to be paying at the higher rate. These are the things that are going to happen if we don't act. The House passed legislation that is going to be devastating for the people who are unemployed in this country. How could we even think of doing something so drastic? I hope tomorrow when the Senate takes up the House bill that we send it back to the House and say: This is not going to go. I will say to the President of the United States: I thought, Mr. President, that you said you were open to working on extending the taxes for everyone, and yet here we are, with the leadership of the House who just talked to the President this week, and we have the same thing they have been talking about for all these months--no give, nothing has changed. So here we are, it is December, and the people of America expect the leaders of Congress to address the issues that are on people's minds. We are 3 weeks from Christmas, we are 4 weeks from the end of the year. How could we leave without taking responsible action to let everyone in this country who is paying taxes know how to plan for--I would hope for 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 years? Lastly, Mr. President, I want to say the one thing that seems to be missing in the Halls of Congress is the importance--to a family, but also to a small business especially that is thinking of expanding and hiring people--of stability and predictability. You can't say we are going to extend the tax cuts for 1 year or 2 years and do the right thing for the economy of our country. We ought to do it permanently, to be honest. But if you are not going to do it permanently, at least do it for 5 years, or, at a minimum, 2 or 3 years. It is not going to cost the government to give these tax cuts. We are keeping it the way it is now. We are trying to spur jobs being created in our country. So when people talk about this is going to cost the government X billion dollars to let people keep the money they have earned, they are going right over the heads of the American people. So predictability is the most important thing we can do for small businesses so they can plan, so they can say we are going to expand our product line, we are going to expand our service area. These are the things they can do if they know what their tax commitments are going to be, and if they know what their health care costs are going to be. That is what is freezing the economy right now because people don't know what to expect. So I hope the President is listening. I hope the leadership of the Senate is listening. Most certainly, I hope the House of Representatives will come to the table and see we can do better than this, and we ought to do it before we leave this week or next week so people know what to expect; so small businesses can sit down at the end of the year and plan their businesses and create jobs in this country. That is the Christmas present people would like. They want jobs. They want to work to support their families. They do not want to live on unemployment. They do not want to live on food stamps. That is not a life. It is not a future. It is not hope. That is what they want--a future and hope for their families. So I hope, myself, that we, the leaders of America, will give the American people what they deserve and what clearly is in the long-term best interests of their families. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I wish to thank the Senator from Nebraska for offering this amendment. Obviously, it has been offered before, but every time I go home it renews my energy to try to stop this from taking effect. Small businesspeople are approaching me and saying: This is crazy. Do we have to report every trip to the Office Depot? Do we have to report every travel voucher for $600 because I am going to a meeting in California? This defies description, except to say it is one more overbearing government intrusion on free enterprise in our country. So I hope very much that because of the message of the elections in November more people will see this is not necessary. It is certainly not a part of health care reform. In fact, when I saw this come out-- this little provision tucked in the enormous health care reform bill-- my thinking was twofold: One, they are paying for this enormous cost of the government takeover of health care on the backs of small businesspeople in our country. That would be one interpretation. The other would be that all the talk coming out of Washington about new taxes and possibly a value-added tax means they are starting to want to get the reports that would be the basis of a new tax system. Neither of those things should be part of health care reform in this country. So I am hopeful we can put a stop to this right now. I think the people of America well understand the burdens of this health care reform bill, passed on Christmas Eve of last year, over our objections on this side of the aisle. So maybe we can start peeling away some of the most onerous provisions--particularly this one, which takes effect in 2012--and begin to let people know we are going to try to mitigate the damage the health care bill has done, and we are going to do it a little bit at a time until we can repeal the whole thing and start all over. It is not that our system doesn't need reform. We all have said we need health care reform. But having to report a trip to the Office Depot to buy stationery or a fax machine is not the way to a better health care system. It is a non sequitur. So I hope Senator Johanns' amendment to this bill passes. It is a freestanding bill, but it is a great amendment to this bill. If we can stop this now, that would be one thing we could take off the table as we are addressing the major issues that actually do deal with health care reform. Maybe we can bring it down to a level where we would be able to address it in a more responsible way. I might add that even the National Taxpayer Advocate Division of the IRS has said they would have significant challenges in processing and analyzing the enormous volume if this piece of the Health Care Reform Act goes through. Even the IRS is asking: How could we do it, which then would lead to: What, more employees at the IRS? Well, that should scare the people of America. The last thing we need is a bigger government created to try to go into the small businesses and see if they are complying with a $600 requirement for every transaction they would make. So I commend the Senator from Nebraska for offering this amendment. I am a cosponsor of this amendment, and I hope we will have enough votes to stop this provision in its tracks, take it off the table, and then deal with health care reform on issues that actually affect health care reform, not issues such as this, which just burden small business in our country at a time when we want them to hire people. We want them to open their doors to hiring more workers. But the more restrictions and the more burdensome paperwork we put on them, the less chance there is they are going to hire people. That is what I am hearing from my constituents, and I know it is the same for all of us who have been home listening to what the people are saying. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator for those clarifications.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to engage my colleague Senator Rockefeller in a colloquy. There have been some questions raised about how S. 3386, the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act, affects a company that sells its business entirely or enters into a deal with another company to ``step into the first company's shoes'' and provide the products or services to consumers that were previously provided by the first company. I would ask the chairman to explain the intent of the legislation.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator. Questions have also been raised about how this bill would affect an online company that bills its customers monthly for an ongoing service and decides to enter into a deal with another company to provide the backend billing and other services to those same customers. What is the intent of the legislation?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I have been waiting now to speak on Ted Stevens, which was, I thought, the time allotted here. I am happy to give the Senator another 2 minutes on top of the extra 15 if that is necessary, but we have several Members wishing to speak on Senator Stevens. If he would hold it to another 2 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise to salute my former colleague Ted Stevens who will be laid to rest in Arlington today. He earned the right to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery, having served in World War II. That is one of the things that hasn't been talked about as much regarding Ted Stevens because he was a remarkable Senator and has a remarkable history with his State of Alaska as well as in the Senate. Ted Stevens served here for 40 years. From the very beginning, Ted was Alaska's greatest champion. He helped found his State. He pushed through Alaska statehood and worked tirelessly to serve its unique needs for his entire life and continued to be its greatest advocate. Nine years after he helped establish Alaska's statehood, he was elected to serve in the Senate. He spent the next 40 years building his State from an undeveloped territory, which Alaska was, to one of our Nation's most important energy producers, along with the other things Alaska gives to our great Nation. It is a testament to Ted Stevens' mighty efforts and his love for his native land. Alaska and every other State was helped by Ted Stevens. Everyone knows he took care of Alaska because he fought ferociously, but he also helped every other Senator represent their States and the priorities of their States, and that was one of the great things about this man. In particular, when he went on the Appropriations Committee and later was its chairman as well as the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, he devoted himself to protecting our troops, to making sure they had the right equipment to do the jobs we ask them to do. Of course, he was a man of the military. He was so proud of his air service. He was a man who had flown in World War II. I visited the World War II Memorial to Americans in Great Britain with Ted Stevens, and he walked around all of the old airplanes and talked about the airplanes that were there and the ones he had flown and the ones that were new. There was an excitement about that, in his 80s--all the memories of his World War II time. When someone would say to me, How do you get along with Ted Stevens, I would always say Ted Stevens is a man who is all bark and no bite. This was a man who had this Incredible Hulk tie and he would frown and he would look ferocious. He was so tender underneath. He wanted to help people. He wanted to make sure people did the right thing. He had a passion, he did, but he was so good underneath. Back in 1993, when I first entered the Senate, I was one of seven women Senators. I would say there was not another woman on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee--my colleague Barbara Mikulski was on the committee--but I wanted to be on the Defense Subcommittee and I told Ted Stevens, We have more Army retirees in Texas than any other State. We have great Army bases as well as Air Force bases in Texas. I want to be on the Defense Subcommittee. He helped me get there. It made a difference in my capability to serve my State and my Nation. I traveled once with Ted Stevens and Danny Inouye to Saudi Arabia for our work on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. I was told later that Ted Stevens was actually discouraged by our Saudi host from bringing me with the delegation because I was a woman. Ted Stevens never told me this until later. He said, No way am I going to keep a member of my subcommittee and my committee off this trip she deserves to go on, and that was it. I was part of the delegation. I visited our air base there with all of the other Members. I participated in every meeting and every event during that trip. Ted Stevens and Danny Inouye together would have it no other way. Let me mention the relationship between Danny Inouye and Ted Stevens. Ted Stevens and Danny Inouye were the chairman and ranking member of the Commerce Committee, but they never referred to each other as ranking member. They were always chairman and vice chairman. It went back and forth. When Democrats were in charge, Danny Inouye would be the chairman of a committee and Ted would be the vice chairman. If Republicans were in the majority, it would be Ted who was the chairman and the vice chairman would be Danny Inouye, because they were World War II soulmates. Danny Inouye--who is now the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and another great patriot for our country, hailing from Hawaii, who won the Congressional Medal of Honor for his great service in World War II--and Ted were inseparable friends and called each other soul brothers. Another Ted story: One day during the markup in the Senate Appropriations Committee, Ted grew very animated, as he did on issues, and when another Senator said, Mr. Chairman, there is no reason for you to lose your temper, Ted glared back and said, I never lose my temper. I know exactly where it is. Those who knew him best knew his compassionate heart. There is a wonderful article this morning in Politico, one of the newspapers on Capitol Hill, and it talks about his time. Again, another Ted story, World War II: He was very close to the Chinese, because he flew missions into China. One of the things he did was fly supplies to GEN Claire Chennault's Flying Tiger air bases in China. He escorted Anna Chennault on her first trip back to China in 1981 when Stevens himself had just remarried and was on his honeymoon with Catherine. ``We went on our honeymoon there with Anna Chennault'', said Catherine Stevens, laughing. ``Everybody kept sending tips that Ted Stevens is on his honeymoon with Anna Chennault.'' Then Catherine said, ``And that was technically true.'' This is another side of this wonderful man that we are going to bury today with all of the tributes and accolades he deserves at Arlington National Cemetery. We will miss this great man, this great patriot, this great Alaskan, this great American, and this great friend to every one of us here. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak in morning business about the military construction issue I spoke about in July. I raised concerns then about the Pentagon's overseas military construction program, particularly in Germany, Korea, and Guam, because, as the ranking member of the Military Construction Subcommittee, I am seeing that we are changing a strategy. Yet we have not had the strategy explained to us. This is the beginning of a huge taxpayer-funded influx of rebuilding overseas in a way that I think is perhaps duplicative and even against the interests that have been shown in our previous strategy. I think it is time to take a pause. I rise to speak because the GAO has just released a study this week that says we should take a pause. The Military Construction Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Johnson--and I respect and appreciate his leadership in this so much--asked the GAO to do a study because we were seeing the Army coming in and asking for what is going to be a commitment for $1 to $2 billion to change their headquarters from Heidelberg to Wiesbaden and to add more BCTs than were originally intended to stay in Germany. We looked at this and said: Wait a minute. We are getting ready to duplicate a lot of effort that we have made in bases in America and at a great taxpayer expense. Yet we are not seeing the backup and the strategy proposed to support this kind of taxpayer expense. Let me start back in the beginning. Prior to the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Army planned to return the four brigade combat teams stationed in Europe to the United States in fiscal years 2012 and 2013. It would save millions annually in overseas stationing costs. This was in response to the Overseas Basing Commission--that was passed by Congress--to adopt a force projection strategy. The Pentagon is reversing the recent efforts to transform the military and restation tens of thousands of military personnel back on U.S. soil. That is what the Overseas Basing Commission recommended, passed by Congress, supported by Congress, and now we seem to see a change in that strategy but without a projection of what the strategy would be. What the Overseas Basing Commission found, and the Pentagon originally agreed with, is that training and deployment of forces was determined to be superior in the U.S. bases and certainly more cost efficient. We learned that there were constraints on transferring the members of our military into Iraq because we could not use the airspace of certain European countries, and we could not go on the train through certain European countries. It was costly to get our troops from Germany into Iraq, more costly than it should have been. In addition, there are training constraints. The Overseas Basing Commission saw this. Many of us who have looked at bases overseas see that there are training constraints. There are constraints for live artillery training. There are constraints for use of the airspace. In looking at this, it was determined we should bring them home from Germany to train in America to accommodate our families in America and to deploy from America, where we would control the capability to deploy quickly and cost efficiently. On that basis, we have invested $14 billion in U.S. bases to accommodate the military and the families who were projected to come to American bases and have the training capabilities they need. Now we are seeing requests for military construction, and it triggered our committee to say: Wait a minute. We are supposed to be pulling out of Germany, but now we are seeing the Army get ready to put $1 billion to $4 billion into military construction, to change their headquarters from Heidelberg to Wiesbaden, and duplicate what we have already done in the United States for construction projects in Europe, Korea, and Guam, without demonstrating the cost efficiencies or projected future costs.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Maryland. Now we are seeing an expensive and duplicative strategy--well, there is not a strategy but request for spending. I am asking for a strategy. The Government Accountability Office did issue a report this week that says the Army's justification for keeping the forces in Europe was based on a flawed analysis, and it would cost taxpayers up to $2 billion, from 2012 to 2021, to pay for it. Let me reference a couple things from the report. The GAO found the decision to retain brigades in Europe to require the Army to seek roughly $176 million annually to support the Bamberg and Swineford communities, again in fiscal year 2013. Those are the communities that would have had Army facilities. The Army now estimates that not returning two of the four BCTs, brigade combat teams, in Europe to the United States could potentially cost between $1 billion and $2 billion between fiscal years 2012 and 2021. It will cost an average of 360 million American dollars per year to retain those units in Europe that were scheduled to be moved to America. Closing the Heidelberg facility and moving the headquarters to Wiesbaden--the Army estimated that move from Heidelberg to go to Wiesbaden would save hundreds of millions of dollars in 2013. But the GAO found the Army now admits they will need $150 million annually to support the continuing operation in Heidelberg because of delays. The GAO goes on to say that the Army has not documented the savings, nor why the move is necessary at that cost. The GAO concludes that with over $1.3 billion invested since 2004 and another $1.4 billion in infrastructure investments planned for the Wiesbaden consolidation and the recapitalization of medical facilities and the potential to increase costs, it would cost up to $2 billion over the next 10 years if all four BCTs were kept in the Europe. The financial stakes are high. The GAO is recommending in its report that the Secretary of Defense take advantage of a pause before final decisions are made on the Army's European force structure, conduct a comprehensive analysis of alternatives, and have a process that is credible in determining what the costs are and whether those units should be kept in Europe or, as originally planned and as invested in our military bases in America, what it is going to cost. The GAO has concluded that we need a comprehensive analysis. It conducted important cost-benefit analyses at the urging of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Johnson. The GAO report findings are instructive. I hope the Pentagon will pause and take a fresh look at this military construction program to determine, does it serve our Nation not to move those troops back? We prepared the bases for them. The families, the medical units, are in the United States now. So, please, I am asking the Pentagon to determine if it does serve our best military strategy and our taxpayers to keep those troops in Europe rather than moving them back. I want to thank Senator Johnson for including a provision in the military construction/VA appropriations bill that would restrict the level of spending in overseas construction. Our bill would restrict the use of MILCON funds for Germany until the Department of Defense completes the following: an evaluation of the NATO strategy concept review, the U.S. assessment of its defense posture in Europe, a front- end assessment of DOD's global posture from fiscal year 2012 to 2016 in the program budget review cycle. I have shared my concerns with the Secretary of Defense. I have asked him, as our committee has asked him, to provide to the Congressional defense committees a comprehensive Army basing strategy for Europe based on these assessments and a projected timeline and a cost estimate of what this will be. In Korea, it is the same. We need a cost estimate for the decision that the Pentagon has apparently made to put more troops and families into Korea without any accommodation for the new facilities that will be needed for the accompanied families' military transfer into Korea.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank you for allowing me to have the extra 5 minutes. I thank the Senator from Maryland. This is a serious issue. The Department of Defense says they are trying to cut back on military spending, and this is a place that would be very important, because if we are going to have accompanied service people, more in Korea now, we have got to accommodate those families. There will be a longer duration of mission, and we have got to accommodate them. There is going to be a cost, and we have not even seen the cost estimates for that yet. We should take a pause on this German MILCON until we know if that is the right thing for our global strategy. I thank the Senator from Maryland for accommodating me on the time. There will be further discussion, I assure you. I ask unanimous consent that the summary from the GAO report be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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